£( 


VINDICATION 


REVISE1>    I^ITURGY, 


HISTORICAL    AND   THEOLOGICAL, 


r 


REV.    ,T.   W.    NEVIN,    1).  J). 


JA,".   W.   KOiHtKRS. 


rillLADELrJtl  A 
;k.  52  * 

1  s  r,  7 


3X 

9573 

.N5 

1867 


-         ^ 


fcibrarjp  of  Che  t:heolog(caI  ^eminarjp 

PRINCETON    .    NEW  JERSEY 


'Hi  V»t 

PRESENTED  BY 

Dr.  Henry  S.  Gehman 

BX  9573  .N5  1867 

Nevin,  John  Williamson,  1803 

-1886. 
Vindication  of  the  revised 

liturgy  historical  and 


VINDICATION 


REVISED    EITURGY. 


HISTORICAL    AND    THEOLOGICAL 


REY.   J.   W.   feviN,   D. 


PHILADELPHIA; 

JA8.    B.   ROIKIERS,   PRINTER,   62  A   64   NORTH   SIXTH   STREET. 
1867, 


ELDERS'  REQUEST. 


Dayton,  December  1,  1866. 

Rev.  J.  W.  Nevin,  D.D. 

Rev. 'AND  Dear  Bro.: — 

We,  tho  undersigned,  Elders  of  the  General  Synod,  being  impressed  with  the  con- 
viction, that  the  exhibition  of  the  history,  doctrines,  and  ruling  spirit  of  the  Revised 
Liturgy,  presented  in  a  tract  entitled,  "A  History  and  Criticism  of  the  Ritualistic 
Movement  in  the  German  Reformed  Church,  by  Rev.  J.  H.  A.  Bombergcr,  D.D.," 
must  be  one-sided  and  unfair,  and,  therefore,  calculated  to  do  much  harm  in  the 
Church;  and  desiring  to  have  an  expression  of  the  views  held  by  the  other  members 
of  the  Committee  who  prepared  the  Liturgy,  would  unite  in  earnestly  requesting 
you  to  furnish  us  with  a  history  of  its  preparation  and  a  critical  review  of  its  merits, 

for  publication. 

Very  respectfully  yours, 

A.  B.  Wingerd,  Mercersburg  Classis. 

D.  S.  Diefifenbacher,  St.  Paul's  " 

J,  Troxel,  Westmoreland  " 

John  Zollinger,  Illinois  " 

Wm.  A.  Wilt,  Zion's  " 

T.  J.  Craig,  Westmoreland  " 

Geo.  P.  Wiestling,  Lancaster  " 

W.  G.  King,  Clarion    '  " 

N.  D.  Hauer,  Maryland  " 

D.  C.  Hammond,  Maryland  " 

Daniel  Cort,  Iowa  " 

Jacob  Bausman,  Lancaster  " 

D.  B.  Martin,  Mercersburg  " 

John  Bowman,  Mercersburg  " 

Geo.  Hill,  East  Susquehannah  " 
Michael  Brown,  West  Susquehanna  " 

R.  E.  Addams,  Lebanon  " 
Samuel  Zacharias,  Zion's 
D.  Lupfer,  Zion's 

John  W.  Bachman,  East  Pennsylvania    " 

John  Meily,  Lebanon  '' 


INTRODUCTION. 


The  Request  prefixed  to  this  pamphlet  sufficiently  explains 
its  occasion  and  object;  while  it  is  of  a  character  also  not  onlj 
to  justify,  but  even  to  demand  and  require  its  appearance.  It 
is  most  true,  that  Dr.  Bomberger's  tract  is  "one-sided  and  un- 
fair, and  therefore  calculated  to  do  much  harm  in  the  Church." 
It  was  brought  out  hastily,  just  before  the  meeting  of  the  late 
General  Synod  at  Dayton,  to  serve  a  party  purpose,  and  as  part 
of  a  plan  to  pre-occupy  the  members  of  that  body  (particularly 
in  the  West),  with  a  prejudice  against  the  Revised  Liturgy, 
which,  it  was  hoped,  might  be  sufficient  to  overwhelm  and  crush 
it  before  it  could  have  a  chance  of  coming  before  the  people. 
It  was,  in  this  respect,  like  a  political  campaign  document,  let 
off  on  the  eve  of  an  election  for  effect ;  and  it  is  characterized 
throughout  by  the  spirit  of  reckless  misrepresentation  we  usually 
meet  with,  and  expect  to  meet  with,  in  publications  of  this  sort. 
Its  criticisms  on  the  Liturgy  itself  do  not  amount  to  much. 
They  are  vague,  indefinite,  and  loose;  turning,  for  the  most  part, 
on  the  use  of  invidious  terms  of  reproach,  and  appeals  to  popu- 
lar prejudice.  But  this  is  only  a  small  part  of  its  offence.  By 
far  the  greater  part  of  the  tract  is  devoted  to  another  object 
altogether-  Under  the  pretence  of  giving  a  history  of  the  Lit- 
urgy, it  seeks  to  make  capital  against  it  by  trying  to  show  that 
it  is  a  grand  fraud,  which  has  been  practised  upon  the  Church 
by  the  Committee  intrusted  with  the  work  of  its  preparation. 


6  INTRODUCTION, 

In  this  view,  it  is  an  atrocious  libel  throughout  upon  the  charac- 
ter of  the  Committee,  as  well  as  an  insult  to  the  Church  at  large, 
in  whose  service  they  have  been  working  for  so  many  years.  All 
this  was  brought  out  clearly  enough  in  the  Synod  at  Dayton ; 
and  the  political  bomb-shell  went  off  there  without  much  execu- 
tion. But  the  matter  deserves  unquestionably  a  still  more  pub- 
lic exposure.  The  voice  of  so  large  a  portion  of  our  Eastern 
lay  delegation  in  attendance  at  Dayton  deserves  to  be  heard. 
I  proceed,  therefore,  to  the  task  of  vindicating  the  Liturgy  from 
the  wrong  that  is  done  to  it  in  this  tract,  both  historically  and 
theologically.  The  personalities  which  this  must  involve,  to  a 
certain  extent,  I  should  have  preferred  having  nothing  to  do 
with;  but  I  do  not  see  how  they  are  to  be  avoided. 

As  just  intimated,  what  I  have  to  say  will  fall  naturally  into 
two  general  parts ;  a  defence  of  the  Liturgy,  or  say  rather  of 
the  movement  leading  to  it,  historically  considered ;  secondly,  a 
defence  of  the  Liturgy,  considered  in  its  actual  theological  cha- 
racter. For  the  second  part,  I  will  take  the  liberty  of  using  an 
article  I  have  written  on  this  subject  for  the  resuscitated  Mer- 
cersburg  Review. 


PART  I 


HISTORICAL  VINDICATION  OF  THE  NEW  LITURGY. 

Worship,  in  the  use  of  prescribed  forms,  is  not  a  new  thing 
in  the  Reformed  Church.  Liturgies,  of  some  sort,  have  had 
place  within  it  from  the  beginning.  They  belonged  to  its  church 
life  in  Europe,  and  they  came  over  with  the  same  church  life 
to  this  country.  At  the  same  time,  they  were  held  to  be  a  fair 
subject  all  along  for  change  and  improvement.  No  Liturgy  was 
considered  to  be  of  perpetual  force,  even  for  the  particular  coun- 
try or  province  in  which  it  was  used ;  much  less  for  other  coun- 
tries. The  liberty  of  primitive  times  here  was  practically  asserted, 
as  the  proper  liberty  of  the  Protestant  Church.  The  old  Swiss 
Liturgies  in  this  way  changed.  The  old  Liturgy  of  the  Palatinate 
became  antiquated,  even  in  the  Palatinate  itself.  There  was  a 
movement  all  along,  in  other  words,  towards  the  realization  of 
something  in  worship,  which  it  was  felt  had  not  been  fully  reached 
in  existing  forms.  The  grossly  unliturgical  tendencies  of  later 
times  (Rationalistic  in  Germany,  Methodistic  in  this  country), 
belonged  themselves  to  this  movement.  But  they  had  no  power 
to  bring  it  to  rest.  They  only  served  to  urge  it  onward  in  its 
course,  by  deepening  the  sense  of  a  want  which  they  had  no 
power  to  satisfy,  and  by  causing  it  to  be  felt,  that  the  true  satis- 
faction for  this  want  must  be  sought  in  some  other  way.  Hence, 
among  the  "pious  desires"  of  the  Reformed  Church  in  America, 
we  find  at  work  all  along,  very  sensibly  felt,  the  wish  for  a  satis- 
factory Liturgy.     The  old  Palatinate  service  was  not  satisfac- 


8  HISTORICAL   VINDICATION 

torj;  and  none  of  the  services  brought  over  from  Europe,  during 
the  last  century,  were  satisfactory.  At  the  same  time,  the  deeper 
consciousness  of  the  Church  refused  to  settle  into  contentment 
with  the  modern  innovation  of  totally  free  prayer.  Such  wor- 
ship had,  indeed,  forced  itself  into  use  on  all  sides;  but  the  true 
genius  of  the  Church,  at  bottom,  resented  it  as  something  foreign 
and  strange;  and  its  voice  was  still  heard,  though  in  more  or 
less  smothered  accents,  calling  out  for  a  Liturgy  that  might  be 
worthy  of  the  name. 

It  was  in  response  to  this  call,  that  the  Mayer  Liturgy^  as  it 
is  called,  made  its  appearance  in  1837;  the  respectable  work  of 
a  truly  respectable  man.  But,  as  all  know,  it  failed  to  satisfy 
the  Church.  Full  opportunity  Avas  given  for  the  trial  of  it.  No- 
body thought  of  opposing  any  bar  to  its  use.  No  popular  pre- 
judice lay  in  its  way;  no  outside  jealousy  stood  ready  to  shout 
Ritualism  in  its  face.  But  still  it  found  almost  no  favor.  Minis- 
ters and  people  consented  in  allowing  it  to  fall  well-nigh  dead 
from  the  press.  Why?  "Because,"  says  Dr.  Bomberger,  "it 
was  unhappily  not  constructed  after  the  pattern  of  our  older 
Liturgies,"  and  was  "too  much  of  an  accommodation  to  the 
spirit  of  the  times."  That  is,  it  did  not  please  the  times,  be- 
cause it  went  too  much  with  the  times,  and  refused  to  go  full 
against  them,  as  was  done  soon  after,  Dr.  B.  tells  us,  by  the  re- 
actionary movement  which  was  led  oif  by  the  publication  of  the 
Anxious  Bench  in  1842.  What  the  Doctor  says,  moreover,  of 
its  unhappy  variation  from  our  older  Liturgies,  is  mere  moon- 
shine. No  following  of  that  pattern  would  have  helped  the 
matter  a  particle.  There  the  older  Liturgies  were;  it  was  an 
easy  thing  to  bring  any  of  them  into  use,  if  the  wants  of  the 
Church  could  have  been  satisfied  in  that  way.  But  they  were 
not  satisfactory;  the  Church  was  all  the  time  feeling  and  reach- 
ing after  something  better ;  and  the  Mayer  Liturgy  proved  a 
flat  failure,  just  because  it  was  not  something  better,  but  the 
same  thing  in  fact — the  continuation  of  a  mode  or  manner  of 
worship,  which  it  was  felt  the  life  of  the  Church  had  outgrown, 
so  as  to  need  now  a  different  style  of  worship  altogether. 

I  well  remember  how  Dr.  Ranch  used  to  speak  of  this  Liturgy. 


OF   THE   NEW   LITURGY.  9 

He  had  no  patience  "with  its  external,  mechanical  character; 
especially  after  the  various  tinkerings  it  had  to  undergo  before 
its  final  adoption.  A  Liturgy,  he  used  to  say,  in  his  earnest, 
genial  way,  should  be  of  one  cast,  a  single  creation,  ruled  through- 
out by  the  presence  of  one  central  idea;  in  this  respect,  like  a 
poem,  or  other  true  work  of  art.  But  what  had  we  here  ?  Dead 
forms  only,  bound  together  in  a  dead  way ;  from  which  it  was 
vain  to  expect,  therefore,  that  the  breath  of  life  should  be  kin- 
dled in  the  devotions  of  the  sanctuary.  Such  a  Liturgy,  he 
thought,  could  do  the  Church  harm  only,  and  not  good. 

Some  years  passed  after  this,  before  any  serious  movement 
was  made  toward  getting  out  a  better  Liturgy.  In  the  view  of 
many,  the  matter  was  not  held  to  be  of  any  very  great  account. 
They  were  willing  to  abide  by  the  system  of  free  prayer,  as  it  * 
had  place  in  the  Presbyterian  Church,  That,  I  may  say,  was 
prevailingly  my  own  position.  I  was  not  liturgical  in  those  days, 
though  not  opposed  to  forms  of  prayer.  But  there  was  in  the 
German  Reformed  Church  somehow  the  power  of  a  different 
spirit,  that  would  not  be  kept  down,  but  still  cried,  "  Give  us  a 
Liturgy,  whereby  Ave  may  be  able  to  worship  God,  like  our  fa- 
thers, with  one  mouth,  as  well  as  with  one  heart."  Thus  the 
Classis  of  East  Pennsylvania  urged  the  subject  upon  the  atten- 
tion of  the  Synod,  which  met  at  Lancaster  in  1847 ;  stating  its 
dissatisfaction  with  the  Mayer  Liturgy,  and  asking  that  either 
the  Old  Palatinate  Liturgy,  or  some  other,  should  be  adopted, 
and  made  of  general  use  in  its  place.  The  whole  subject  was 
hereupon  referred  to  the  several  Classes  for  their  consideration. 
They  reported  favorably  to  the  object  the  following  year;  and 
the  Synod  of  Hagerstown  accordingly  (1848),  after  a  long  and 
earnest  discussion,  placed  the  matter  in  the  hands  of  a  special 
Committee  (Dr.  J.  H.  A.  Bomberger,  Chairman),  with  instruc- 
tions to  report  at  the  next  annual  meeting  of  Synod.  This  re- 
port was  presented  to  the  Synod  of  Norristown  in  1849,  vindi- 
cating at  large  the  use  of  liturgical  forms,  and  recommending 
the  appointment  of  a  Committee  to  present  at  the  next  meeting 
of  Synod  a  plan  or  schedule  for  a  Liturgy,  such  as  the  wishes 
of  the   Church  were  supposed  to  require.      The  report  was 


10  HISTORICAL   VINDICATION 

adopted ;  and  a  Liturgical  Committee,  as  it  came  to  be  called 
after ^Yards,  was  constituted,  for  the  purpose  of  carrying  its  re- 
commendation into  effect. 

The  Committee  consisted  of  the  following  persons :  Ministers^ 
J.  W.  Nevin,  Philip  Schaff,  Ellas  Heiner,  B.  0.  Wolff,  J.  H.  A. 
Bomberger,  H.  Harbaugh,  J.  F.  Berg;  Elders,  William  Heyser, 
J.  C.  Bucher,  Dr.  C.  Schaeffer,  and  G.  C.  Welker. 

Here  properly  starts,  at  the  Synod  of  Norristown  in  1849, 
the  particular  Liturgical  Moveijient,  which,  running  through  a 
series  of  seventeen  years,  has  issued  finally  in  the  Revised  Lit- 
urgy as  it  now  stands,  and  the  history  of  which  Dr.  Bomberger 
has  contrived  so  strangely  to  fabricate  into  a  wholesale  slander, 
of  the  vilest  sort,  against  the  Committee  by  whom  it  has  been 
produced. 

Let  no  one  imagine,  however,  that  I  propose  to  follow  him  in 
^he  details  of  his  pretended  historical  argument,  with  the  view 
of  showing  them  untenable  and  false.  That  would  be,  indeed, 
both  time  and  labor  thrown  away.  He  abounds  in  special  plead- 
ing, and  wastes  page  after  page  on  points,  that  are,  when  all  is 
done,  of  no  account  for  the  main  issue  in  hand.  He  lays  him- 
self out  largely  to  show  that  the  Synod  from  time  to  time  clearly 
and  plainly  had  one  object  in  view,  while  the  Committee  was 
just  as  clearly  and  plainly  bent  on  carrying  out  another  object; 
and  it  is  wonderful  what  an  amount  of  petty,  quibbling  inter- 
pretation he  employs  to  make  the  case  appear  in  this  false  light. 
There  is  a  great  parade  of  trying  to  bring  out  in  this  small  way 
the  sense  of  particular  documents  and  facts,  as  though  this  must 
necessarily  sliow  historical  veracity  and  candor.  But  who  does 
not  know,  how  easy  it  is  to  make  this  sort  of  exactness  in  par. 
ticulars  the  medium  of  wholesale  misrepresentation  in  regard  to 
what  is  general  ?  This  is  just  what  Dr.  Bomberger  has  done ;  and 
what  is  required,  therefore,  is  not  a  rectification  of  his  histori- 
cal positions  and  points  in  detail,  but  a  broad  exposition  rather 
of  the  universal  falsehood  that  runs  through  his  tract.  This 
can  be  done,  happily,  v.'ith-out  much  trouble. 

A  simple  statement  of  the  theory,  on  which  the  Doctor  con- 
structs what  he  calls  his  History  of  the  Ritualistic  Movement 


OF   THE   NEW   LITURGY.  11 

in  the  German  Reformed  Church,  is  enough  to  overthrow,  for 
any  reflecting  mind,  the  credit  of  the  whole  thing.  It  is  too 
monstrously  absurd  for  any  sober  belief.  It  bears  the  stamp  of 
wholesale  falsification  on  its  very  face. 

The  theory  runs  as  follows : — The  Synod  of  the  German  Re- 
formed Church  proposed  to  have  a  new  Liturgy,  and  appointed  a 
Committee  of  suppf^sed  reliable  men  (Dr.  Bomberger  and  Dr.  Berg 
among  them),  to  bring  out  the  work.  The  Synod  had,  at  the  same 
time,  a  very  clear  conception  of  what  it  wanted  and  wished  in  this 
movement,  and  took  pains,  from  year  to  year,  to  make  the  Com- 
mittee understand  exactly  the  character  of  the  service  they  were 
expected  to  perform.  Strangely  enough,  however,  this  Com- 
mittee seemed  to  be  possessed,  from  the  beginning,  with  a  deter- 
mination not  to  do  the  very  thing  they  were  charged  to  do  in  this 
solemn  Avay.  Nay,  worse  than  this;  it  soon  became  only  too 
evident,  that  the  Committee  had  deliberately  made  up  their 
mind  (Drs.  Berg  and  Bomberger  still  among  them),  to  do  the 
very  opposite  of  the  thing  they  were  thus  charged  to  do;  that 
they  had,  in  other  words,  conceived  the  plan  of  another  order 
of  worship,  a  liturgical  service  altogether  different  from  what 
the  Synod  was  thinking  and  resolving  about,  and  now  set  them- 
selves systematically  to  the  task  of  bringing  the  Synod  to  ac- 
cept their  scheme,  instead  of  its  own.  It  was  a  bold  purpose, 
assuredly;  but  the  men  also  were  bold,  who  had  it  in  hand;  their 
position  in  the  Church  gave  them  mighty  advantage;  and  the 
event  has  shown  that  their  policy  was  at  once  far  reaching  and 
profound.  They  knew  it  was  in  vain  to  think  of  carrying  their 
point  with  the  Synod  openly  and  directly.  So  they  went  to 
work  stealthily,  and  with  circuitous  management  and  stratagem, 
to  accomplish  their  object;  content  to  wait  through  years,  if 
only  they  might  be  sure  of  reaching  it  in  the  end.  With  this 
view,  it  became  necessary,  first  of  all,  to  stave  off  action  in  regard 
to  the  Liturgy;  in  order  that  time  might  be  gained  in  this  way 
for  working  the  mind  of  the  Church  round,  by  skilful  manipu- 
lation, to  a  new  way  of  looking  at  the  subject,  and  so  room  be 
made  for  palming  off  upon  it  at  last  what  the  Committee  wished 
to  give  it,  in  place  of  what  the  Church  itself  wanted  to  have. 


12     ■  HISTORICAL   VINDICATION 

Such  was  the  situation  of  things  from  the  very  bei^inning  of  this 
Liturgical  Movement;  and  here  it  is  we  have  the  key,  Avhich, 
properly  applied,  is  sufficient  to  unlock  the  secret  sense  of  all 
its  historical  intricacies,  as  regards  both  the  Committee  and  the 
Syno:L     The  history  of  the  movement  is  simply  the  progress  of 
a  curious  game  between  these  two  bodies — all  simplicity  on  the 
one  side,  and  all  duplicity  (diabolically  astutft)  on  the  other — in 
which  the  Committee  succeeds  in  out-witting  and  out-generalling 
the  Synod  through  seventeen  weary,  mortal  years;   so  as  to 
bring  things  to  the  melancholy  pass  they  have  now  reached  in 
the  Revised  Liturgy.     Whether  the  Committee  acted,  or  refused 
to  act,  it  all  meant  the  same  thing.     Their  one  grand  object 
throughout,  was  to  baffle  and  defeat  the  wishes  of  the  Synod; 
and  this  they  did  with  a  vengeance.     Never,  surely,  was  Govern- 
ment, political  or  religious,  so  impudently  bamboozled   before* 
The  Synod  had  the  power  all  in  its  own  hands;  might  have  had 
things  at  any  time  its  own  way:  could  have  said  whenever  it 
pleased:  "Gentlemen  of  the  Liturgical  Committee,  you  have 
been  appointed  to  do  the  work  we  want,  in  the  way  we  want, 
and  not  in  any  other  way;  and  if  you  do  not  choose  to  do  it  in 
this  way,  go  about  your  business ;  we  will  appoint  another  Com- 
mittee to  do  the  work  in  your  place."     This  the  Synod  could 
have  said  and  done  at  any  time;  but  just  this  the  Synod  never 
did  say,  and  never  would  do.     On  the  contrary,  it  persisted  all 
alon<x  in  holdinof  this  same  refractory  Committee  to  its  task. 
Year  after  year,  the  Committee  reported,  according  to  Dr.  Bora- 
berger,  that  it  was  not  doing  what  the  Synod  wanted ;  year  after 
year,  the  Synod  accepted  the  report,  and  continued  the  Com- 
mittee in  service — all  the  while  reiterating,  according  to  Dr. 
Bomberger,  in  spirit,  at  least,  if  not  in  form,  its  original  in- 
structions.    No  other  Committee  could  serve  its  turn  but  this. 
No  other,  it  was  supposed,  could  produce  a  Liturgy  to  its  satis- 
faction.    In  spite  of  all  its  miserable  contumacy,  tergiversation, 
and  treasonable  malpractice,  no  other  was  to  be  thought  of  for 
a  moment  as  worthy  of  the  same  confidence.     It  must  be  either 
this  Lituro-ical  Committee  or  none.     0  marvellous  Committee! 
No  wonder  there  should  be  to  Dr.  Bomberger's  vision  "a  ser- 


OF  THE   NEW    LITURGY.  13 

pent"  in  the  Liturgy  itself,  when  the  magicians  that  produced 
it  could  exercise  such  basilisk  enchantment  over  the  senses  of 
the  venerable  body  they  thus  played  fast  and  loose  with,  through 
a  period  of  seventeen  years. 

The  mere  statement  of  such  a  theory  as  this,  I  repeat,  is 
enough  to  cover  it  Avith  confusion.  It  is  outrageously  prepos- 
terous. No  man  in  his  senses  can  believe  it.  Yet  this  is  just 
what  all  comes  to,  in  Dr.  Bomberger's  professed  history  of  what 
he  calls  the  ritualistic  movement  in  the  German  Reformed 
Church.  There  is  no  true  history  in  it.  With  all  its  talk  about 
fairness  and  candor,  documents  and  facts,  it  is  nothing  more 
than  a  caricature  of  history  from  beginning  to  end. 

The  movement  inaugurated  at  Norristown  in  1849,  he  says, 
contemplated  no  such  Liturgy  as  we  have  now  offered  for  our 
use.  This  is  very  true,  and  needs  no  argument  whatever.  The 
Committee  was  instructed  to  "examine  the  various  Liturgies  of 
the  Reformed  Churches,  and  other  works  published  on  this  sub- 
ject in  later  times,  and  specify,  as  far  as  this  may  be  done,  the 
particular  forms  that  are  believed  to  be  needed,  and  furnish 
specimens  also,  such  as  may  be  regarded  as  called  for  in  the 
circumstances  of  the  Church  in  this  country."  All  this,  evi- 
dently, looks  only  to  the  conception  of  a  book  of  forms  for  the 
pulpit;  and  falls  far  short  of  Avhat  the  idea  of  a  liturgical  set- 
vice  has  come  to  mean  among  us  since  that  time.  It  is  worthy 
of  being  noted,  however,  that  even  at  this  early  stage  of  the 
movement,  it  was  held  that  there  should  be  no  mere  following 
of  European  examples  in  what  was  done,  but  a  proper  regard, 
also,  to  the  circumstances  of  the  Church  in  this  country. 

At  the  Synod  of  Martinsburg,  the  following  year,  1850,  the 
Liturgical  Committee  was  heard  from,  as  follows:  "The  Com- 
mittee appointed  to  commence  the  preparation  of  a  new  Liturgy, 
respectfully  report,  that  after  such  attention  as  they  have  been 
able  to  give  to  the  subject,  and  in  view  of  the  general  posture 
of  the  Church  at  the  present  time,  they  have  not  considered  it 
expedient,  as  yet,  to  go  forward  with  the  work.  Should  it  be 
felt  necessary  on  the  part  of  the  Synod  to  bring  out  at 
once  a  new  formulary  for  public  use,  it  is  believed  that  the 


14  HISTORICAL   VINDICATION 

most  advisable  course  for ''the  present  would  be  to  give  a  trans- 
lation simply  of  the  old  Liturgy  of  the  Palatinate;  although 
the  Committee  are,  by  no  means,  of  the  mind,  that  this  would 
be  the  best  ultimate  form  in  which  to  provide  for  the  great  in- 
terest here  in  question.  Altogether,  it  is  felt,  however,  that 
other  questions  now  before  the  Church  need  first  to  be  settled, 
in  order  that  it  may  become  important  really  to  bestow  any  full 
and  final  care  on  this  question  of  a  new  Liturgy." 

All  this,  certainly,  looks  innocent  enough.  The  Committee 
felt  that  nothing  they  could  make,  in  the  way  of  compilation, 
out  of  the  Palatinate  Liturgy  and  others,  would  prove  satisfac- 
tory ;  and  they  gave  this  as  a  reason  for  their  not  having  gone 
forward  with  the  work  assigned  them;  while  they  say,  at  the 
same  time,  that  if  Synod  thought  otherwise,  and  must  have  a 
formulary  of  the  sort  proposed  without  farther  delay,  then  the 
Committee  recommend  simply  the  Old  Palatinate  Liturgy  itself 
as  the  best  present  provision  for  the  case. 

But  see,  now,  how  Dr.  Bomberger  manages  to  look  at  so 
plain  and  simple  a  matter  through  his  green,  historical  specta- 
cles. Here,  at  the  very  outset,  he  tells  us,  we  are  met  with 
that  diplomatic  duplicity,  which  is  found  to  characterize  the 
relations  of  the  Committee  to  the  Synod  all  along  afterwards. 
He  has  the  impudence  to  say,  without  a  particle  of  proof,  that 
"the  real  import  of  the  reasons"  assigned  by  the  Committee, 
"for  not  at  once  proceeding  with  their  work,"  was  not  what 
these  seemed  to  mean  at  the  time  on  their  face.  There  was  no 
honesty  in  their  report.  "  The  Synod  had  not  asked  the  Com- 
mittee to  investigate  anew  the  subject  of  ecclesiastical  ritualism; 
to  take  into  consideration  the  expediency  or  the  advisableness 
of  going  forward  with  the  preparation  of  suitable  forms;  to 
inquire  into  the  present  posture  of  the  Church ;  or  to  raise  other 
similar  side  issues."  What  they  did  now,  in  doing  nothing, 
was  the  beginning  of  their  refractoriness,  and  ominous  of  trou- 
ble. "This  was  the  first  instance  in  the  history  of  this  liturgi- 
cal movement,  in  which  the  Committee,  through  the  influence 
of  its  leading  members,  set  up  its  own  opinions  and  wishes,  in 


OF   THE   NEW   LITUKGY.  15 

opposition  to  those  of  the  Synod  and  the  Church;  unhappily,  it 
was  not  the  last." 

Is  not  this  the  sublimity  of  nonsense?  Did  not  the  Com- 
mittee recommend  the  Palatinate  Liturgy,  if  one  must  be  had 
at  once,  as  the  best  thing  they  felt  themselves  prepared  to  bring 
forward  at  that  time?  What  was  there,  then,  to  hinder  the 
Synod  from  adopting  it,  and  urging  the  use  of  it  upon  the 
churches?  The  Committee  stated  frankly  their  own  opinion, 
that  this  would  not  prove  ultimately  satisfactory ;  but  the  Synod 
was  not  bound,  in  any  way,  to  have  the  same  judgment.  Why 
did  it  not  go  on,  then,  to  have  the  Palatinate  Liturgy  trans- 
lated and  published?  Plainly,  because  it  thought,  with  the 
Committee,  that  the  circumstances  of  the  Church  called  for 
something  different.  No  censure  was  passed  on  the  Commit- 
tee.    They  were  continued  in  office  and  trust,  as  before. 

One  year  after  this,  at  the  Synod  of  Lancaster,  1851,  the 
Liturgical  Committee  again  present  themselves,  and  report  no 
progress.  They  had  not  found  the  way  open  to  do  anything 
they  could  be  satisfied  with,  in  the  work  placed  in  their  hands; 
and  they  had  come  to  despair  very  much  of  their  being  able  to 
produce  any  Liturgy,  that  would  prove  generally  and  perma- 
nently satisfactory  to  the  Church.  This  was  especially  my  own 
feeling,  I  had  not  led  the  way  at  all  in  the  movement;  my 
heart  was  not  in  it  with  any  special  zeal ;  I  was  concerned  with 
it  only  in  obedience  to  the  appointment  of  Synod;  other  in- 
terests appeared  to  me  at  the  time  to  be  of  more  serious  ac- 
count; and  I  had  no  faith  in  our  being  able  to  bring  the  work 
to  any  ultimate  success.  In  these  circumstances,  I  was  not 
willing  to  stand  charged  with  the  responsibility  of  continuing 
Chairman  of  the  Committee;  and  I  asked  the  Synod,  accor- 
dingly, to  relieve  me  from  this  position;  with  the  understand- 
ing that  I  would  be  willing  to  act  with  it  still  in  a  subordinate 
character.  The  request  was  granted,  and  Dr.  Schaff  was  made 
Chairman  in  my  place.  The  name  of  Prof.  T.  C.  Porter,  at 
the  same  time,  was  added  to  the  Committee. 

All  this  again  looks  innocent  enough;  for  common  eyes,  there 
would  seem  to  be  no  mystery  about  it  whatever.     But  only  see 


16  HISTORICAL   VINDICATION 

once  more,  what  becomes  of  it,  Avhen  subjected  to  the  disordered 
vision  of  Dr.  Bomberger.  I  get  no  credit  for  giving  up  the  leader- 
ship of  the  Committee;  on  the  contrary,  it  seems  to  be  regarded 
rather  as  a  stroke  of  policy,  which  was  designed  to  help  on  the 
general  object  of  obstructing  the  Avork  the  Synod  was  vainly 
struggling  to  get  done;  although  happily,  in  this  case,  it  seems 
again,  the  Synod  saw  through  the  ruse,  and  waved  it  handsomely 
to  the  one  side.  "It  was  probably  understood,"  we  are  told,  "by 
most  of  the  clergymen  at  least  of  the  Synod,  why  Dr.  Nevin 
had  been  unable  to  carry  out  the  Avishes  of  the  Church  in  the 
work  of  the  Liturgy,  and  why  he  desired  to  be  relieved  from  all 
responsibility  as  Chairman  of  the  Committee.  But  the  Synod 
showed  no  disposition  to  modify  its  views,  in  order  to  accommo- 
date them  to  his  opinions  in  the  case.  Had  there  been  any 
thought  of  departing  from  the  purpose  and  principles  at  first 
laid  down  by  the  Synod  of  Norristown,  this  would  have  been  a 
fitting  time  to  bring  out  such  a  thought.  Instead,  however,  of 
betraying  any  tendency  in  this  direction,  the  Synod  held  fast 
to  its  original  design,  accepted  Dr.  Nevin's  resignation,  ap- 
pointed Dr.  Schaif  in  his  place,  and  impliedly,  said:  Now, 
brethren,  we  hope  you  will  have  no  farther  difiiculty  in  pressing 
forward  rapidly  Avith  the  Avork,  according  to  instructions  previ- 
ously given,  but  be  able  to  report  its  early  completion."  How 
the  plot  thickens  !     How  the  history  becomes  clear  as  mud! 

The  hypothesis  is,  that  the  Committee  have  joined  hands  to 
thwart  the  Synod  in  its  design  to  have  a  certain  kind  of  Liturgy. 
Dr.  Schaff  and  myself  are  at  the  bottom  of  the  conspiracy;  we 
have  conceived  the  idea  of  reaching,  at  last,  another  order  of 
worship  altogether,  and  are  doing  all  we  can,  theologically,  to 
bring  about  such  a  result;  we  have  engaged  the  Committee  to 
hold  back  the  liturgical  movement ;  and  my  giving  up  the  helm 
is  only  part  of  the  play,  intended  to  bring  matters  to  a  dead- 
lock, and  thus  force  the  Synod  to  come  into  our  vieAvs.  The 
Synod  has  some  dim  sense,  however,  of  the  way  things  are 
going ;  winks  significantly  at  the  last  sly  trick  in  particular ; 
places  the  rudder  in  the  trustworthy  hands  of  Dr.  Schaff;  leaves 
the  impracticable  Committee  constituted,  in  all  other  respects, 


OF   THE   NEW   LITURGY.  17 

as  before ;  and  bids  a  hearty  God-speed  to  their  labors,  with  in- 
struction to  "report  as  soon  as  possible."     Is  not  that  rich? 

Dr.  Schaff  now  went  to  work  in  earnest,  and  set  the  rest  of 
us  to  work  also,  in  preparing  forms.  He  had  faith  in  the 
movement ;  as  for  myself,  I  had,  I  confess,  almost  none.  Still, 
I  tried  to  do  my  share  of  service,  and  spent  hours  in  what  was 
found  to  be  generally  a  tedious  and  irksome  task.  The  work 
involved,  necessarily,  liturgical  studies;  and  these  brought 
with  them  a  growing  liturgical  culture,  which  required  an  en- 
largement of  the  range,  within  which  it  was  proposed,  origi- 
nally, to  confine  the  course  of  the  movement. 

In  the  report  of  the  Committee,  made  to  the  Synod  of  Balti- 
more in  1852,  through  Dr.  Schaff,  all  this  is  brought  fairly  and 
fully  into  view.  It  gave  a  plan  of  such  a  Liturgy  as  was  pro- 
posed ;  set  forth  the  principles  on  which  it  should  be  constructed, 
and  offered  some  specimens  of  what  it  was  expected  to  contain. 
In  this  report,  the  ground  is  taken  distinctly,  that  the  new 
Liturgy  ought  not  to  be  shaped  simply  after  modern  models, 
reaching  back  no  farther  than  the  Reformation;  that  among 
these  later  schemes  of  worship,  "  special  reference  ought  to  be 
had  to  the  Old  Palatinate  and  other  Reformed  Liturgies  of  the 
sixteenth  century";  but  that  the  general  basis  of  the  work 
should  be  "  the  liturgical  worship  of  the  Primitive  Church,  as 
far  as  this  can  be  ascertained  from  the  Holy  Scriptures,  the 
oldest  ecclesiastical  writers,  and  the  Liturgies  of  the  Greek  and- 
Latin  Churches  of  the  third  and  fourth  centuries."  Should 
the  principles  proposed  be  conscientiously  and  wisely  carried 
out,  the  report,  in  conclusion,  adds,  "it  is  hoped  that,  by  the 
blessing  of  God,  a  Liturgy  might  be  produced  at  last,  which, 
will  be  a  bond  of  union,  both  with  the  ancient  Catholic  Church, 
and  the  Reformation,  and  yet  be  the  product  of  the  religious 
life  of  our  denomination  in  its  present  state." 

Dr.  Bomberger  troubles  himself  sorely  with  this  famous  Bal- 
timore report.  The  Synod,  he  thinks,  hardly  knew  what  it 
was  about,  when  it  was  induced  to  adopt  it.  "  There  was  no 
time  taken,"  he  tells  us,  "to  weigh  its  import.  There  was  no 
dissection  of  its  several  parts,  no  discussion  of  its  pregnant  pro-. 
2 


18  HISTORICAL  VINDICATION 

positions.  With  all  the  saving,  modifying  clauses,  which  -we 
shall  show  it  contains,  it  cannot  be  denied,  that  it  proposes  great 
departures  from  the  original  design  and  purpose  of  the  Synod." 
This  is  a  great  confession,  coming  from  Dr.  Bomberger.  But 
he  tries  bravely  again  to  do  away  with  its  damaging  effect ;  by- 
catching  at  all  the  "saving,  modifying  clauses  "  he  can  find  in 
the  case,  and  making  use  of  them  in  the  way  of  very  small  chi- 
canery and  special  pleading,  to  show  that  after  all  the  action  of 
Synod  here,  does  not  mean  as  much  as  it  seems  to  mean.  Mat- 
ters might  have  been  worse.  There  is  room  for  praise  in  what 
was  done,  as  well  as  blame.  The  wisdom  of  the  Synod  shines 
beautifully  through  its  folly ;  its  unseemly  haste  is  charac- 
terized, after  all,  by  great  caution.  "  It  is  very  significant," 
our  ecclesiastical  Philadelphia  lawyer  tells  us,  "that  its  action 
is  expressed  in  such  cautious  terms."  "Hastily  as  this  im- 
portant report  was  disposed  of,  there  is  no  such  endorsement  of 
its  peculiar  sentiments,  no  such  committal  even  to  the  general 
basis  and  plan  of  liturgy  now  proposed,  or  to  the  proposed  de- 
partures from  the  first  purpose  and  aim  of  Synod  in  this  whole 
movement,  as  should  be  considered  sufficient  to  bind  the  Synod 
and  the  Church  to  all  the  details  of  the  report,  or  to  debar 
all  modifications  and  objections  which  subsequent  reflection 
misrht  sugrgest."  Precious  crumbs  of  comfort  for  the  chickens 
of  the  covenant,  truly,  in  so  hard  a  case!  "It  proves  the 
wisdom  of  the  body,"  it  is  added,  "that  it  spoke  with  so 
much  ofl5cial  reserve  upon  the  subject.  The  report  was 
simply  adopted,  without  any  expression  on  its  merits."  Only 
this,  and  nothing  more;  saving  merely  a  resolution,  bidding  the 
Committee  to  go  ahead  with  their  work,  and  "to  carry  out  the 
suggestions  made  at  the  close  of  their  report."  Only  this; 
"  even  suppose  the  pound  of  flesh  is  rigorously  exacted,  and  the 
Synod  held  relentlessly  to  the  letter  of  the  bond."  Only  this,  0 
Shylock ;  and  nothing  more. 

A  truce,  however,  to  this  pleasantry.  I  have  no  mind  to 
stand  strictly  upon  the  pound  of  flesh;  and  do  not  care  at  all 
to  run  a  race  of  special  pleading  with  Dr.  Bomberger  for  the 
exact  letter  of  this  Baltimore  bond.  It  may  not  mean,  in  the 
circumstances,  all  that  it  has  been  logically  made  to  mean  since. 


OP  THE  NEW   LITURGY.  W 

It  is  very  likely,  the  Synod  did  not  closely  weigh  terms,  and 
that,  for  a  large  part  of  it  at  least,  the  full  import  of  its  action 
Was  not,  at  the  time,  distinctly  considered.  But  what  then  ? 
Are  we  to  suppose,  that  it  had  not  at  least  a  general  sense  of 
what  it  was  about  ?  This  general  sense,  in  the  case,  is  all  we 
care  for;  and  it  is,  in  fact,  also  all  that  is  needed,  to  take  the 
wind  out  of  Dr.  Bomberger's  historical  hobby,  and  to  place  the 
liturgical  movement  before  us  in  its  true  light. 

Movement  there  was  in  the  matter,  beyond  all  controversy  or 
question.  The  Committee  had  moved;  they  make  no  secret  of 
the  fact;  they  come  before  the  Synod,  asking  an  enlargement 
of  the  terms  of  their  commission.  And  now  it  appears  that 
there  has  been  movement  also  in  the  Synod.  The  confession 
the  Committee  make  of  their  troubles  is  taken  in  good  part. 
It  ought  not  to  have  been  so,  according  to  Dr.  Bomberger. 
"'Who  had  directed  them,"  he  asks,  "to  make  the  study  of 
medieval  or  still  earlier  liturgies  and  litanies  an  essential  part 
of  their  work  ?  Who  had  requested  them  to  make  selections  of 
services  from  works  issued  before  the  Reformation?  Not  the 
Synod.  On  the  contrary,  not  trusting  to  what  might  be  taken 
for  granted,  the  Synod,  as  we  have  seen,  from  the  first,  used 
the  precaution  of  naming,  definitely,  the  sources  from  which  it 
expected  the  matter  of  the  new  Liturgy  to  be  substantially 
drawn.  These  were  genuine  Reformed  Liturgies  from  that  of 
the  Palatinate  (1663)  onwards."  What  business  had  the  Com- 
mittee, then,  to  be  bewildering  and  befogging  themselves,  like 
wayward,  truant  children,  with  studies  outside  of  these  whole- 
some limits.  "Above  all,  what  propriety  was  there  in  seeking 
to  involve  the  Synod  and  the  Church  in  perplexities,  by  which, 
through  their  disregard  of  very  definite  instructions,  they  had 
become  embarrassed  ?  Neglecting  to  use  the  chart  and  com- 
pass put  into  their  hands  by  the  Church,  they  had  become  en- 
tangled in  the  wilderness.  Why  seek  to  entice  the  Church  into 
that  same  wilderness,  not  to  help  them  out,  but  to  lodge  or 
wander  there  with  them?"  The  case  is  well  put.  All  can  see 
that.  But,  unfortunately,  this  Baltimore  Synod  would  not 
look  at  the  matter  in  that  way.     It  did  not  get  angry  with  the 


20  HISTORICAL   VINDICATION 

Committee;  did  not  scold  it;  did  not  bid  it  back,  like  a  set  of 
naughty  cliildren,  to  the  bounds  from  which  it  had  wilfully 
strayed.  On  the  contrary,  the  Synod  professed  to  be  well 
pleased  with  the  Committee ;  approved  its  wandering  studies ; 
had  compassion  on  its  perplexities ;  and  generously  granted  all 
it  asked  in  the  way  of  enlarged  powers.  The  Church,  in  other 
words,  followed  the  Committee  into  the  wilderness.  Was  there 
no  movement  in  all  this?  Did  the  Synod  of  Baltimore  stand, 
in  regard  to  the  liturgical  question,  just  where  the  Synod  of 
Norristown  stood  three  years  before  ?  Could  it  possibly  dream 
that  it  did  so,  in  the  surroundings  of  its  action  ?  No  amount 
of  pettifoggery  can  set  aside,  what  all  the  world  may  so  easily 
see  to  be  the  plain  meaning  of  so  plain  a  case. 

The  matter,  however,  admits  and  requires  a  still  broader 
view  than  this.  Whatever  the  Baltimore  Synod  meant  by  its 
action,  that  action  was  not  final.  It  could  not  bind  the  Church, 
says  Dr.  Bomberger,  against  the  reaction  of  better  subsequent 
thought  rearward.  Just  as  little,  say  we,  could  it  bind  the 
Church  against  the  movement  of  better  subsequent  thought  for- 
ward. Our  concern,  in  the  case  of  these  Baltimore  principles 
and  instructions,  is,  after  all,  not  so  much  with  what  they 
meant  for  the  Baltimore  Synod  itself,  as  with  the  sense  in 
which  they  have  been  actually  carried  out  since  by  the  Liturgi- 
cal Committee,  under  the  eye  and  open  sanction  of  more  than 
a  dozen  later  Synods.  With  regard  to  this,  at  all  events,  there 
can  be  no  mistake.  The  liturgical  movement,  the  true  inward 
history  of  the  new  Liturgy,  did  not  begin  in  1852 ;  and  it  was 
very  far  from  having  come  to  its  end  there. 

The  names  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  D.  Zacharias,  and  Elders  G. 
Schseffer  and  J.  E,odenmayer,  were  now  substituted,  in  the 
Committee,  for  those  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  Berg  (who  had  gone  into 
the  Reformed  Dutch  Church),  and  the  Elders,  J.  C.  Bucher 
and  Dr.  C.  Schseffer  (deceased).  There  was  added  to  it,  also, 
the  name  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  Samuel  R.  Fisher. 

Three  years  now  passed,  before  we  hear  of  another  report 
from  the  Liturgical  Committee.  It  was  working  to  some  ex- 
tent ;  but  not  with  any  comfortable  feeling  of  success.     During 


OF   THE   NEW   LITURGY.  21 

part  of  the  time,  Dr.  SchafF  was  in  Europe.  Much  that  was 
done  was  felt  to  be  afterwards  unsatisfactory.  There  was  an 
accumulation  of  material,  which  brought  with  it  no  light  or 
order  in  the  work  of  construction.  The  more  the  Committee 
read  and  studied,  and  talked  together,  on  the  subject,  the 
more  they  found  that  it  was  no  small  thing  to  make  a  Liturgy ; 
and  could  only  smile  at  the  easy  credulity  with  which  it  had 
been  imagined  at  the  first,  that  such  a  work  might  be  carried 
through  in  the  course  of  a  single  year.  One  great  difficulty 
was,  that  the  work  seemed  continually  to  unsettle  and  destroy 
itself.  'What  was  done,  would  not  stay  done;  but  had  all  the 
time  to  be  done  over  again.  In  knowing  the  wreck  of  matter, 
and  the  crush  of  forms,  through  which  the  hard  way  of  the 
Committee  thus  led  them,  one  is  tempted  to  think  Dr.  Bomber- 
gcr  half  right;  and  to  ask  what  business  they  had  then  to  be 
troubling  themselves  with  out  of  the  way  studies,  which  nobody 
required  at  their  hands.  Why  should  they  have  left  the  green 
pastures  of  ignorance,  and  the  quiet  waters  of  tradition,  where 
they  were  first  put  to  the  working  out  of  their  task?  Why, 
indeed,  0  foolish,  straying,  and  now  much-bewildered  Liturgi- 
cal Committee. 

At  the  Synod  of  Chambersburg,  however,  in  1855,  we  meet 
them  again ;  and  are  pleased  to  learn,  from  their  report,  that 
they  have  made  progress,  and  are  in  a  fair  way  to  get  their 
work  before  the  Church  in  the  course  of  the  coming  year.  But 
the  tone  in  which  they  speak  of  it  is  anything  but  sanguine. 
^'A  growing  sense,"  they  say,  "of  the  great  difficulty  and  re- 
sponsibility of  the  task  intrusted  to  their  care,  and  of  their  in- 
sufficiency satisfactorily  to  perform  it,  has  brought  them  to  the 
conclusion  strongly  to  dis-advise  any  final  action  of  Synod,  for 
Bome  time  to  come,  on  this  subject;  which  is  so  intimately  in- 
terwoven with  the  most  vital  and  sacred  interests  of  the  Church, 
and  which  is  just  now  beginning  to  be  seriously  agitated  also 
in  various  other  Protestant  denominations  of  our  country. 
Their  intention  is  simply  to  furnish,  according  to  the  best  of 
their  ability,  -d  provisional  liturgy,  including  a  sufficient  variety 
of  forms  for  examination  and  optional  use,  until  the  Church  be 


22  HISTORICAL   VINDICATION 

fully  prepared,  by  practical  experience,  to  bring  it  into  such  a 
shape  and  form  as  will  best  suit  the  wants  of  our  ministers  and 
congregations,  and  make  it,  under  the  blessing  of  God,  a  rich 
fountain  of  sound  piety  and  fervent  devotion  for  many  genera- 
tions." 

The  Synod,  as  usual,  made  the  action  of  the  Committee  its 
own.  The  report  was  adopted  ;  the  proposition  in  regard  to  a 
provisional  liturgy  was  approved  ;  and  order  was  taken  to  pro- 
vide for  its  publication.  At  the  same  time,  the  Rev.  Dr.  E.  V. 
Gerhart  was  added  to  the  Committee. 

The  Committee  went  on  working;  but  found  it  impossible 
still  to  bring  their  work  to  a  close  so  soon  as  they  had  expected. 
Meeting  after  meeting  was  called;  and  session  after  session 
was  devoted  to  the  task  of  reviewing  preparations,  discussing 
principles,  weighing  thoughts,  and  measuring  the  proper  sense 
of  words.  A  most  important  educational  discipline,  all  felt  it 
to  be  who  took  part  in  it,  not  only  in  a  liturgical  but  also  in  a 
theological  view.  But  the  discipline  was  laborious  and  dis- 
couraging. As  before,  it  was  hard  to  get  things  finally  fixed. 
Reconstruction  and  reorganization  seemed  to  have  no  end.  At 
last,  however,  though  not  until  another  meeting  of  Synod  had 
passed,  the  end  did  come;  and  the  Committee  met,  for  the  last 
time  as  they  trusted,  in  October,  1857,  to  subject  their  work  to 
a  final  joint  revision,  and  to  superintend  its  rapid  progress 
through  the  press. 

This  was  an  interesting  occasion.  The  entire  work,  previ- 
ously examined  and  agreed  upon  in  parts,  was  now,  after  a 
new  general  review,  adopted  unanimously  as  a  whole,  in  the 
form  in  which  it  became  known  afterwards  as  the  Provisional 
Liturgy.  It  is  a  little  curious,  that  the  only  notice  we  have  of 
this  meeting,  and  of  the  merits  of  the  new  Liturgy,  published 
at  the  time,  is  from  the  pen  of  the  same  Dr.  J.  H.  A.  Bomber- 
ger,  who  sees  in  the  whole  Liturgical  Movement  now  nothing 
less  than  a  foul  conspiracy  against  the  dearest  interests  of  the 
German  Reformed  Church.  It  is  to  be  found  in  a  long  article 
which  he  published  in  the  German  Reformed  Messenger  of 
November  18,  1857,  devoted  wholly  to  the  purpose  of  recom- 


OP   THE    NEW    LITURGY.  23 

mendinT  the  work.  It  can  do  no  harm,  to  borrow  here  a  few 
touches  from  thi:^  fine  okl  historiographical  sketch.  They  be- 
long properly  to  our  subject. 

The  Committee,  it  should  have  been  stated,  met  in  Philadel- 
phia. The  occasion  was  metropolitan.  "Its  final  sessions,"  we 
are  informed,  "were  held  in  the  old  consistory  room  of  the  Race 
street  German  Reformed  Church,  and  around  the  same  old  walnut 
table,  at  which  Schlatter,  Wynckhaus,  Ilendel,  Ilelffenstein,  and 
Weiberg,  all  of  blessed  memory,  had  so  often  been  seated,  when 
presiding  over  the  council  of  the  congregation,  or  instructing 
the  youth  of  their  charge  in  the  holy  doctrines  of  our  religion, 
as  set  forth  in  the  Heidelberg  Catechism.  The  sessions  of  the 
Committee  were  closed  Avith  a  fervent  thanksgiving  prayer,  and 
the  singing  of  the  doxology." 

Now  for  the  character  of  the  work.  "  The  Plan  and  Prin- 
ciples reported  to  the  Synod  of  Baltimore  in  1852,  and  then 
approved  of  " — it  is  thus  the  Dr.  Bombcrger  of  1857  can  talk — 
"have  been  faithfully  adhered  to  in  the  execution  of  the  work. 
Accordingly,  while  everything  has  been  made  to  yield  to  the 
true  standard  and  spirit  of  genuine  Evangelical  Protestantism, 
and  especially  to  the  Reformed  type  thereof,  scope  has  been 
given  to  that  liberal,  catholic  spirit,  which  constitutes  one  of 
the  most  glorious  characteristics  of  an  elevated  Christian  free- 
dom, and  is  the  beautiful  contrast  of  every  sort  of  bigotry  and 
exclusiveness.  'AH  things  are  yours,'  is  the  assurance  of  the 
Apostle.  The  Evangelical  Catholic  Christian,  therefore,  may 
appreciate  every  thing  that  is  good,  and  make  it  auxiliary  to 
his  faith,  his  piety,  and  his  love.  He  need  despise,  or  reject, 
no  age,  no  nation,  no  Church,  no  body  of  Christians  wdio  hold 
the  truth  in  righteousness,  but  regard  all  with  charity,  and 
learn  from  all,  with  meek  wisdom,  whatever  they  may  ofier  for 
his  improvement.  In  this  spirit,  according  to  the  Plan  and 
Principles  referred  to,  the  Committee,  like  the  prudent  scribe 
(Matt,  xiii:  52),  seems  to  have  endeavored  to  bring  forth,  out 
of  the  rich  treasures  of  the  Church,  things  old  and  new,  that 
by  all  combined,  the  edification  of  Christ's  flock  may  be  se- 
cured.    But  the   Christian  liberality  of  spirit  thus  exercised 


24  HISTORICAL   VINDICATION 

has  been,  we  believe,  limited  at  all  points  by  ultimate  reference 
to  our  old  standard  Palatinate  Liturgy.  So  that  while  such 
modifications  (in  the  general  plan,  in  the  specific  forms,  and  in 
the  pervading  style),  as  were  felt  to  be  expedient  and  neces- 
sary, have  been  freely  allowed,  the  new  work  will  be  found  to 
be  in  essential  agreement  with  the  old.  It  may  be  said  io  be 
what  the  original  framers  of  the  Palatinate  Liturgy  would  have 
made  it,  had  they  lived  and  labored  in  such  a  period  as  ours." — 
"The  book,  like  every  thing  else  new,  will  have  to  be  tried,  be- 
fore any  right  judgment  Can  be  passed  upon  it.  If  only  it  be 
tried  in  candor!" — "If  only  the  sacramental,  festival,  and  special 
forms  of  the  new  work  should  come  into  general  public  use  in 
our  Church,  a  greatly  beneficial  influence  must  be  exerted.  We 
have  seen  and  read  these  forms,  and  feel  confident  that  they 
will  commend  themselves  to  the  warmest  approval  of  all  who 
will  seriously  and  candidly  study  them." — "Although  the  forms 
for  the  administration  of  the  sacraments  are  intended  to  be 
used  chiefly  by  pastors  and  people  collectively  on  the  appro- 
priate occasions,  they  will  be  found  no  less  instructive  for  pri- 
vate i^erusal.  Parents,  who  have  been  blessed  with  children, 
whom  they  have  given  to  the  Lord  in  baptism,  would  find  much 
admonition  and  profit  in  the  baptismal  service.  The  reading 
of  it  at  intervals,  in  their  homes,  and  to  their  children,  would 
keep  all  concerned  in  beneficial  remembrance  of  what  had  been 
promised  and  done.  And  nothing,  in  the  way  of  outward  help, 
would  be  so  well  calculated  (in  the  writer's  full  conviction)  to 
promote  the  worthy  and  comfortable  observance  of  the  Holy 
Supper,  as  the  devout  perusal  of  the  communion  service  on  the 
evening,  or  several  times  during  the  week,  before  the  sacra- 
mental Sunday." 

Who  would  imagine  this  to  be  the  very  same  Dr.  J.  H.  A. 
Bomberger,  that  now  breathes  out  threatenings  and  slaughter 
against  the  Liturgy  in  its  revised  form ;  who  sees  in  it  all  manner 
of  "Gorgons,  and  hydras,  and  chimeras  dire;"  and  who  espe- 
cially denounces  its  baptismal  and  communion  services  (in  no 
material  point  changed  from  what  they  were  in  1857),  as  being 
Burcharged  with  theological  poison  of  the  very  worst  kind! 


OF   THE   NEW    LITURGY.  2i) 

At  the  Synod  of  Allentown  in  1857,  the  Committee  reported 
what  was  now  done.  The  Provisional  Liturgy  was  complete, 
and  in  the  printer's  hands.  The  report  was  adopted ;  and  the 
following  vote  of  thanks  was  passed  at  the  same  time,  showing 
the  light  in  which  the  services  of  the  Committee  were  regarded. 
It  does  not  sound  much  like  alienation  of  confidence,  or  soured 
humor.  The  whole  runs:  "Resolved,  That  our  most  devout 
thanks  are  due  to  the  Great  Head  of  the  Church,  for  having 
sustained  the  brethren  of  the  Committee  in  their  weighty  labors, 
and  for  having  gifted  them  with  that  spirit  of  cordial  harmony 
essential  to  the  success  of  such  an  undertaking.  Resolved, 
That  the  thanks  of  this  Synod  are  due,  and  are  hereby  tendered, 
to  the  brethren  of  the  Committee,  for  the  strict  attention,  the 
untiring  perseverance,  the  self-denying  labors,  and  the  unwa- 
vering fidelity,  which  they  have  devoted  to  the  work  assigned 
to  them,  and  that  this  Synod  heartily  commend  them  to  the 
blessing  of  Almighty  God,  and  to  the  warmest  regard  and  love 
of  the  German  Reformed  Church."  And  yet,  according  to  Dr. 
Bomberger,  this  same  Committee  (himself  among  them)  had  been 
fooling  the  Synod  for  eight  long  years ;  not  doing  all  the  time 
what  the  Synod  wanted  done;  and  now  at  last  stood  there  in- 
sulting the  Synod  to  its  very  face,  with  the  offer  of  a  Liturgy, 
the  like  of  which  nobody  had  dreamed  of  in  1849  at  Norris- 
town! 

The  Provisional  Liturgy,  of  course,  carried  with  it  no  binding 
authority  of  any  kind  for  the  churches.  They  were  merely  al- 
lowed to  make  use  of  it,  in  whole  or  in  part,  if  they  saw  proper. 
It  was  put  forth  professedly  as  an  experiment.  By  an  under- 
standing with  the  publishers,  this  arrangement  was  to  run  on 
for  at  least  ten  years. 

I  had  no  expectation  myself,  that  the  work  would  be  generally 
adopted.  It  was  not  fitted  for  easy  and  smooth  practice ;  it 
seemed  to  be  too  great  a  change  for  our  churches ;  the  very  fact 
of  its  being  an  experiment,  stood  in  the  way  of  any  general  se- 
rious effort  to  bring  it  into  use.  Still  I  did  not  feel  that  the 
labors  of  the  Committee  had  been  thrown  av/ay.  The  work  had 
its  literary  value.     It  might  do  good  service  educationally.     It 


26  HISTORICAL   VINDICATION 

was  a  relief  to  feel,  at  all  events,  that  with  it  we  had  reached  a 
decent  end  for  our  long,  weary  pilgrimage  in  search  of  a  Litur- 
gy ;  for  there  was  no  reason  to  think  we  could  now  reach  our 
object  in  any  other  way.  The  Church  might  not  be  prepared 
at  all  for  this  new  order  of  worship;  but  it  was  just  as  clear, 
that  she  could  not  now  be  satisfied  with  any  such  book  of  forms 
as  was  thought  of  in  the  beginning.  We  were  beyond  that.  We 
had  got  into  the  wilderness  together;  and  the  best  we  could  do 
was  to  make  up  our  minds  now  to  stay  there  for  forty  years  at 
least,  leaving  it  for  the  next  generation  to  get  up  their  own 
Liturgy,  should  they  think  proper,  in  a  way  to  please  them- 
selves. That  was  about  the  feeling  in  which  I  had  come  to  settle 
down  comfortably  in  regard  to  the  whole  matter;  and  it  gave 
me  any  thing  but  pleasure  to  be  rudely  jostled  out  of  it,  a  few 
years  later,  by  the  cry  that  was  raised  for  a  Revision. 

The  Liturgy,  in  fact,  did  not  get  into  any  general  use.  In 
that  respect  it  proved  a  failure.  Yet  it  was  wonderful  to  see, 
how  it  worked  notwithstanding  as  a  silent  influence  among  us, 
in  favor  of  sound  ideas  on  the  subject  of  Christian  worship.  It 
wrought  a  change,  far  and  wide,  in  the  spirit  and  form  of  our 
sanctuary  services.  It  served  to  deepen  among  us  the  power  of 
the  liturgical  movement,  which  had  given  it  birth.  It  became 
more  and  more  apparent,  that  this  movement  could  not  be  turned 
back;  could  not  be  arrested,  and  made  to  stand  still.  Its  only 
redemption  and  deliverance  lay  in  going  forward. 

Three  years  later,  at  the  Synod  of  Lebanon,  in  1860,  the 
Liturgical  Committee  faiade  their  final  report,  and  were  dis- 
charged. The  subject  of  revision  had  now  come  to  engage  con- 
siderable attention ;  and  this  same  Synod,  accordingly,  passed 
an  act  referring  the  work  to  the  examination  of  the  Classes, 
for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  their  judgment  of  what  was  desira- 
ble with  regard  to  it  in  this  view. 

Meanwhile,  however,  the  old  treasonable  practising  of  the 
Committee  against  the  Church  was  kept  up,  according  to  Dr. 
Bomberger,  even  worse  than  before.  The  Committee,  as  such, 
indeed,  was  discharged,  and  had  no  longer  any  existence ;  but 
its  members  were  as  badly  alive  and  awake  as  ever ;  and  their 


OF   TUE    NEW    LITURGY.  27 

plan  was  now  to  have  the  work  of  revision  deferred  (as  they 
had  held  back  the  work  of  preparation  before,  with  masterly  in- 
activity, through  so  many  years),  in  the  hope  that  the  Provi- 
sional Liturgy,  every  where  unpopular,  might  still  go  on  never- 
theless to  infect  the  popular  mind  with  its  deleterious  poison; 
so  that  the  way  should  be  open  finally  for  revising  it  at  last  into 
the  full-blown  ritualism,  which  it  had  been  in  the  heart  of  this 
conspiracy  all  along  to  compass  and  reach.  And  now  let  the 
world  take  note  of  "a  remarkable  phenomenon,  having  relation 
to  the  general  movement,  which  appeared  during  the  year 
1861" — a  sort  of  prodigy  in  the  heavens,  that  might  well  cause 
children  at  least  to  stand  aghast.  The  Liturgy  would  not  take 
with  the  grown  membership  of  the  Church;  the  people  refused 
to  be  educated  by  it  out  of  their  old  notions  and  customs.  So 
the  defunct  Committee,  it  would  seem,  said  somehow  among 
themselves :  "  Go  to  now ;  we  will  send  forth  a  lying  spirit  among 
the  children,  whereby  they  can  be  reached  and  trained  into  the 
new  ways.  Children  and  youth  are  pliant  and  unsuspicious; 
they  can  be  taught  and  moulded  to  any  thing."  A  new  Sun- 
day-school Hymn  Book,  for  which,  unfortunately,  there  was 
only  too  much  need  at  the  time,  with  proper  ritualistic  appara- 
tus, suggested  itself  as  a  proper  medium  for  the  end  proposed; 
and  a  suitable  organ  to  produce  it  was  not  long  wanting.  The 
plot,  accordingly,  was  carried  into  effect.  "  Such  a  Hymn 
Book,"  we  are  solemnly  informed,  "was  prepared  by  the  Rev. 
Dr.  Harbaugh,  a  member  of  the  Liturgical  Committee,  and  was 
sent  forth  on  its  Jesuitical  mission."  Was  it  not,  then,  by  the 
instigation  of  the  Committee?  If  not,  pray,  by  whose  insti- 
gation? 

At  the  Synod  of  Easton,  in  1861,  the  action  of  the  several 
Classes  on  the  question  of  revision,  was  reported  at  large.  It 
did  not  amount  to  much.  The  Classes  were  greatly  divided  in 
their  judgment;  and  so  far  as  any  suggestions  were  made  in  re- 
gard to  what  should  be  modified  or  changed,  they  were  of  too 
loose  and  indeterminate  a  character  altogether  to  be  of  any  prac- 
tical account.  The  whole  subject,  in  truth,  was  exceedingly 
confused.     Nobody  doubted  the  necessity  of  having  the  Liturgy 


28       ^  HISTORICAL   VINDICATION 

revised  sooner  or  later,  if  it  was  ever  to  come  into  general  use; 
the  only  question  was,  whether  the  revision  should  go  on  imme- 
diat«lj,  or  be  postponed,  for  years  at  least,  if  not  indefinitely. 
For  reasons  already  given,  I  was  myself  in  favor  of  indefinite 
postponement. 

The  proposition  to  take  the  work  in  hand  at  once,  however, 
prevailed.  After  considerable  discussion,  the  Synod  took  action 
as  follows:  "Resolved,  That  the  Provisional  Liturgy  be  placed 
in  the  hands  of  the  original  Committee  for  final  revision ;  and 
that  the  Committee  be  instructed  to  consider  the  suggestions  of 
the  Classes  as  given  in  the  minutes  of  their  late  meetings,  and 
use  them  in  the  revision  of  their  work,  as  far  as  the  general  va- 
riety of  the  work  will  allow,  and  in  a  way  that  shall  not  be  in- 
consistent either  with  established  liturgical  principles  and  usages, 
or  with  the  devotional  or  doctrinal  genius  of  the  German  Re- 
formed Church.  That  the  Committee  be  requested  to  report  at 
the  next  annual  meeting  of  the  Synod,  if  possible,  with  a  view 
of  bringing  this  devotional  work  to  a  consummation  desired  by 
the  Church,  during  the  Tricentennial  commemoration  of  the 
Heidelberg  Catechism." 

To  any  unsophisticated  mind,  the  sense  of  this  proceeding  is 
abundantly  plain.  It  did  not  mean,  that  the  Committee  must 
fall  back  on  the  old  Norristown  instructions  of  1849;  that  the 
Synod  had  not  changed  at  all  its  views  of  what  a  Liturgy  should 
be  since  that  time;  and  that  the  course  of  the  Committee,  in  not 
carrying  them  out  heretofore,  had  been  refractory  and  contu- 
macious. Nothing  of  this  sort.  It  meant  plainly  a  reiteration 
of  the  Baltimore  instructions  of  1852;  in  the  sense  in  which 
these  had  been  distinctly  understood  and  acted  upon  by  the 
Committee  afterwards ;  in  the  sense  in  which  every  body  could 
see  that  they  had  been  actually  wrought  into  the  constitution  of 
the  Provisional  Liturgy.  That  was,  in  fact,  an  attempt  to  bring 
the  liturgical  life  of  the  first  ages  into  harmonious  union  with 
the  devotional  and  doctrinal  genius  of  the  Reformed  Church  in 
modern  times.  And  now  the  order  of  Synod  is,  not  that  it 
should  be  pulled  to  pieces  under  pretence  of  amendment,  but 
that  its  organic  unity  should  be  preserved;  so  that,  through  all 


OF   THE   NEW   LITURGY.  29 

changes,  it  should  remain  substantially  what  it  now  was,  and 
not  be  metamorphosed  into  something  else  of  wholly  different 
nature.  This,  unquestionably,  is  what  the  action  of  that  Eastori 
Synod  means,  and  was  intended  to  mean.  And  in  token  of  it 
still  farther,  we  have  the  old  Committee  called  into  existence 
again,  to  carry  out  the  work ;  the  very  last  agency,  if  Dr.  Bom- 
berger's  misrepresentations  were  correct,  that  should  have  been 
thought  of  for  any  such  purpose.  It  would  have  been  easy  to 
appoint  a  new  Committee.  But  no;  that  would  not  do.  Only 
the  old  Committee,  it  was  supposed,  could  do  proper  justice  to 
their  own  work.  Let  them  have  full  power,  therefore,  to  man- 
age this  liturgical  question,  as  before.  The  Synod  will  have  no 
other  Committee. 

Many  will  remember  how  earnestly  I  tried,  at  this  time,  to 
have  my  own  name,  at  least,  dropped  from  this  new  commission. 
I  told  the  Synod,  that  I  had  no  faith  in  the  undertaking;  that 
I  did  not  think  the  Church  was  prepared  to  receive  the  Liturgy 
in  any  form  we  could  give  it;  that  I  knew  the  proposed  work 
would  involve  far  more  than  the  slight  changes  some  talked  of; 
that  I  was  sure  the  Committee  would  not  be  able  to  get  forward 
now  with  full  agreement;  that  there  was  no  reason  then  to  ex- 
pect that  the  Church  generally  would  be  satisfied  with  what  was 
done;  that  in  these  circumstances  the  service  appeared  to  me  a 
thankless  waste  of  labor  and  time ;  that  I  had  no  heart  for  it, 
and  could  not  take  part  in  it  with  any  animation  or  zeal;  and 
that  my  want  of  spirit  in  this  way  would  make  me  a  dead  weight 
only  on  the  cause  I  was  expected  to  serve.  All  this  I  urged; 
and  fairly  begged,  over  and  over  again,  to  be  excused  from  the 
appointment.  But  the  Synod  would  not  hearken  to  my  prayer. 
The  old  Committee  must  serve;  and  I  mmt  serve  Avith  it — in 
spite  of  all  I  had  done,  according  to  Dr.  Bomberger,  to  upset 
the  order  and  change  the  life  of  the  German  Reformed  Church, 
by  this  very  liturgical  movement,  in  previous  years. 

In  the  face  of  these  broad  facts,  what  becomes  of  the  special 
pleading  of  such  a  man,  put  forward  heye  again,  as  in  the  case 
of  the  Synod  of  Baltimore,  to  torture  words  and  phrases  into 


30  HISTORICAL  VINDICATION 

the  service  of  his  own  fancies?  Is  it  any  thing  better  than  so 
much  idle  wind? 

When  the  Committee  came  together  again,  it  turned  out  as  I 
expected.  There  was  a  difference  of  opinion  among  them,  in  re- 
gard to  the  principles  by  which  they  were  to  be  governed  in 
their  revision.  Dr.  Bomberger  took  one  view  of  the  subject, 
while  the  rest  of  the  Committee  in  attendance  took  another. 
Three  days,  at  least,  were  consumed  in  friendly  discussion,  and 
abortive  attempts  to  get  forward.  Finally,  it  was  felt  necessary 
to  refer  the  difficulty  to  Synod  for  settlement;  whereupon  the 
following  action  was  unanimously  adopted: 

"  Whereas,  In  the  endeavor  to  revise  the  Provisional  Liturgy, 
the  Committee  discover,  after  a  long  discussion,  protracted 
through  several  days,  that  there  is  a  radical  difference  of  opinion 
among  its  members  concerning  the  import  of  the  resolutions  of 
Synod  ;  therefore.  Resolved^  That  the  Rev.  Dr.  J.  W.  Nevin  pre- 
pare a  report  to  Synod,  setting  forth  a  clear,  definite,  and  full  idea 
of  both  schemes  of  worship  advocated  in  Committee,  in  order 
that  Synod  may  understand  the  real  question  at  issue,  and  state 
in  explicit  terms  what  it  requires  at  our  hands." 

This  took  place  in  Lancaster.  A  meeting  of  the  Committee 
was  held  subsequently  in  Lebanon,  when  the  report  thus  called 
for  was  received,  adopted,  and  ordered  to  be  published  for  the 
consideration  of  the  Church.  Dr.  Bomberger  voted  against  this 
action.  The  report  was  presented  to  the  next  Synod,  which  met 
at  Chambersburg  in  1862,  in  the  form  of  a  tract,  bearing  the 
title:  "The  Liturgical  Question,  with  reference  to  the  Pro- 
visional Liturgy  of  the  German  Reformed  Church." 

Much  ado  has  been  made  about  this  tract.  The  object  of  it, 
however,  is  sufficiently  plain.  The  liturgical  interest  among  us 
had  become  cmbarassed  by  its  own  movement.  There  were 
mixed  up  in  it  two  different  conceptions  of  what  a  liturgy  ought 
to  be.  We  had  started  in  1849  with  one;  all  of  us,  Committee 
and  Synod,  having  in  our  mind  at  that  time,  almost  entirely,  the 
notion  simply  of  a  book  of  forms  for  the  pulpit.  But  we  were 
carried  gradually  beyond  this,  and  came  to  feel  more  and  more 
the  meaning  of  worship  in  its  proper  congregational  view;  which 


OF   THE    NEW   LITURGY.  31 

brought  with  it,  of  course,  the  idea  of  a  liturgy  directed  and 
adapted  more  particularly  to  this  end;  the  idea,  in  other  words, 
of  a  liturgy  belonging,  not  properly  to  the  pulpit,  but  to  the 
altar.  Not  that  these  two  conceptions  were  consciously  distin- 
guished in  this  way.  On  the  contrary,  they  ran  more  or  less 
into  one  another;  only  with  a  growing  preponderance  of  favor 
toward  the  idea  of  altar  worship — even  where  the  meaning  of  it 
was  not  yet  fully  understood.  Under  the  plastic  force  of  this 
sentiment  it  was,  that  the  Provisional  Liturgy  had  finally  taken 
form  and  shape.  It  was  prevailingly  an  order  of  worship  for 
the  altar.  It  became  this  mainly  through  its  communion  ser- 
vice, which  was  made  to  rule  and  control  the  movement  of  all 
its  other  services.  There  were  come  few  forms  in  it,  indeed, 
and  parts  of  forms,  which  were  not  strictly  coherent  with  this 
scheme,  but  might  be  said  to  be  of  the  character  rather  of  mere 
pulpit  services ;  and  so  far  it  may  be  admitted  that  Dr.  Bom- 
berger  is  right  in  ascribing  what  he  calls  a  duplex  character  to  the 
work.  But  he  is  egregiously  wide  of  the  mark,  when  he  speaks 
of  by  far  the  greatest  portion  of  it  as  being  of  the  type  now  re- 
ferred to;  to  such  extent,  he  says,  as  "greatly  to  overshadow, 
and  almost  exclude  the  other;"  and  nothing  could  well  be  more 
ridiculous,  than  his  notion  of  converting  the  whole  into  a  good 
and  acceptable  form  book  for  the  pulpit,  by  simply  doing  away 
with  the  responses,  and  striking  out  or  changing  a  few  passages 
here  and  there,  supposed  to  be  of  objectionable  sound.  It  is  all 
the  other  way ;  the  reigning  character  of  the  Provisional  Liturgy 
is  that  of  an  altar  service,  and  what  there  is  in  it  that  does  not 
fall  in  with  this  conception,  is  there  only  by  exception,  and  in 
the  way  of  compromise,  as  it  were,  with  the  opposite  scheme. 
So  at  least  the  Committee  felt,  which  had  produced  it,  all  ex- 
cept Dr.  Bomberger;  and  so  they  understood  the  Synod  to  feel, 
in  the  direction  it  had  given  them  to  be  governed  in  their  revi- 
sion by  a  proper  regard  to  "the  general  unity  of  the  work." 
It  was  felt,  at  the  same  tim.e,  however,  that  there  might  be,  and 
probably  was,  a  measure  of  confusion  still  in  the  mind  of  the 
Church  with  regard  to  the  subject;  and  when  Dr.  Bomberger 
now  joined  issue  with  the  rest  of  us  on  this  fundamental  ques- 


32  HISTORICAL   VINDICATION 

tion  at  the  very  threshold  of  our  new  work,  there  seenied  to  be 
but  one  course  for  us  honestly  and  honorably  to  pursue.  We 
would  refer  the  question  to  Synod;  and  we  would  try  to  do  this 
in  such  a  way,  as  to  cut  oif,  if  possible,  all  room  for  mistake, 
and  to  bring  out  the  mind  of  the  Synod  in  such  sort  that  there 
should  be  no  room  to  dispute  about  it  afterwards.  This  was 
the  object  of  the  tract  now  under  consideration;  and  it  was  pur- 
posely written  in  the  form  which  seemed  best  suited  to  reach 
that  object. 

To  Dr.  Bomberger's  jaundiced  vision,  this  tract,  like  every- 
thing else  done  or  left  undone  by  the  Committee,  was  part  of 
our  plan,  either  to  cajole  or  dragoon  the  Church  into  the  scheme 
of  ritualism  we  were  forging  for  its  neck.  But  in  that  view, 
never  surely  did  a  band  of  conspirators  play  a  more  stupid 
game.  For  what  course  could  the  Committee  have  taken,  that 
Avas  more  likely  than  just  the  publication  of  this  tract,  to  rouse 
against  them  and  their  work  all  the  anti-liturgical,  or  merely 
semi-liturgical  spirit  there  was  in  the  Church?  Was  it  not  a 
perfect  godsend,  in  this  respect,  to  Dr.  Bomberger  himself? 
Has  it  not  been  the  armory,  from  which  he  has  stolen  his  best 
thunder  against  the  Liturgy  ever  since?  Have  not  its  "con- 
cessions "  been  held  up,  on  all  sides,  to  the  people,  as  enough 
to  damage  and  damn  the  work  before  all  examination?  Were 
we  not  gravely  told  at  Dayton,  by  more  than  one  respectable 
declaimer,  that  the  Liturgical  Committee  had  in  this  tract 
charged  themselves  with  a  design  to  revolutionize,  radically,  the 
ecclesiastical  life  of  the  German  Reformed  Church,  and  madly 
asked  the  Synod  of  Chambersburg,  at  the  same  time,  to  co- 
operate with  them  in  carrying  out  their  nefarious  purpose? 
What  truly  magnificent  cunning !  What  marvellous  profundity 
of  art ! 

Any  honest  person  can  see  that  the  tract,  instead  of  being  an 
attempt  to  seduce  the  Synod  into  the  views  of  the  Committee, 
was,  in  fact,  a  most  honest  effort  to  place  the  whole  subject  in  a 
light,  which  might  preclude  all  blind  judgment  in  regard  to 
it,  and  bring  the  Synod  to  act  upon  it  in  the  most  free  and  in- 
dependent way.     Speaking  for  myself  again,  I  may  say  that  I 


OF   THE   NEW    LITURGY.  33 

hardly  expected  or  wished  the  Synod  to  fall  in  with  the  high 
view  of  altar  worship  presented  in  the  tract.  Had  that  body 
been  prepared  to  say,  "We  want  no  such  worship  as  that,"  I 
would  have  been  content,  and  more  than  content,  to  be  dis- 
charo-ed  from  all  further  concern  in  the  case.  As  it  was,  I  was 
determined,  at  all  events,  that  there  should  be  no  farther  mis- 
understanding, if  there  had  been  any  before,  of  what  the  Commit- 
tee had  been  doing  thus  far,  and  of  what  they  intended  to  do 
still,  if  they  were  required  to  go  on  with  this  work.  With  this 
view,  the  case  was  put  in  the  most  extreme  light.  The  dis- 
tinction between  the  two  orders  of  worship  (pulpit  liturgy  and 
altar  liturgy)  was  drawn  in  clear  lines;  and  in  a  way  which 
has  caused  it  to  be  understood  since,  and  practically  laid  to 
heart,  as  it  had  not  been  before.  The  idea  of  an  altar 
liturgy  was  declared  to  be  alone  worthy  of  respect.  Then  it 
was  openly  said,  in  substance:  "This  idea  has  governed  the 
work  of  the  Committee  thus  far,  in  conformity,  as  they  have 
supposed,  with  the  instructions  of  the  Synod  of  Baltimore,  in 
1852;  the  Provisional  Liturgy  is  an  altar  liturgy,  in  the  sense 
of  this  tract ;  and  it  cannot  be  made  to  be  any  thing  else,  with- 
out destruction  of  its  organic  unity  and  wholeness.  That,  at 
least,  is  the  judgment  of  the  Liturgical  Committee.  It  is  for 
the  Synod,  then,  to  know  and  to  say,  what  its  real  wishes  are 
in  this  posture  of  the  case.  Shall  the  liturgical  movement  go 
on  still  in  the  line  of  this  Provisional  Liturgy,  as  thus  deter- 
mined by  the  sense  of  the  Committee  that  framed  it;  or  shall 
it  be  now  stopped  here,  and  turned  into  another  and  wholly 
diifercnt  course?" 

Dr.  Bomberger,  in  the  meantime,  had  been  at  work,  in  his 
own  way,  to  out-plot  the  Committee.  He  had  taken  it  into  his 
head,  that  he  could,  himself,  do  up  in  short  order  what  the 
Church  wanted  in  this  business  of  revision ;  and  came,  accord- 
ingly, prepared  with  a  scheme  of  alterations  and  amendments, 
which  he  fondly  hoped  the  Synod  might  be  ready  at  once  to 
adopt,  and  so  end  the  whole  matter.  Of  all  this,  he  said  not  a 
word  to  the  Committee,  when  he  met  with  them  previously  in 
regular  session,  at  Chambersburg;  but  sprung  the  whole  sud- 
3 


34  HISTORICAL   VINDICATION 

denly  upon  Synod  itself,  in  most  unparliamentary  style,  by 
means  of  what  he  was  pleased  to  call  a  minority  report,  in  op- 
position to  the  report  of  the  Committee.  His  proposed  revision, 
however,  found  no  favor !  It  only  served  to  show  how  absurd 
it  was  to  think  of  manufacturing  the  Provisional  Liturgy  into 
different  shape  in  that  mechanical  way.  There  were  not  proba- 
bly three  members  of  the  Synod  who  would  have  been  willing 
to  vote  for  the  piebald  affair.  No  vote,  however,  was  taken 
upon  it.  There  was  an  animated  debate  on  the  general  subject 
of  the  Liturgy,  continuing  through  three  days ;  at  the  end  of 
which  it  was  decided,  with  overwhelming  voice,  that  the  way 
was  not  open  for  taking  any  further  action  in  regard  to  the 
Provisional  Liturgy  at  that  time;  that  the  optional  use  of  it, 
as  previously  allowed,  should  be  continued  till  the  end  of  ten 
years  from  the  time  of  its  first  publication ;  and  that  the  whole 
question  of  its  revision  should  be  indefinitely  postponed.  The 
Liturgical  Committee  was  thus  dissolved  a  second  time. 

This  took  place  in  1862.  In  the  fall  of  1863,  the  General 
Synod  of  the  Reformed  Church  held  its  first  meeting  in  Pitts- 
burg. Here  the  subject  was  again  called  up,  in  connection 
with  a  request  in  regard  to  it  from  the  Western  Synod.  Liberty 
was  granted  to  this  Synod  to  go  on  and  prepare  a  new  Liturgy, 
such  as,  in  their  view,  might  suit  the  wants  of  the  Church; 
while  it  was  recommended,  at  the  same  time,  that  the  Eastern 
Synod  also  should  go  forward  with  the  revision  of  its  Liturgy 
according  to  its  own  judgment,  so  that  it  might  come  before 
the  General  Synod  in  complete  form,  with  a  view  to  final  action 
upon  the  whole  subject. 

In  conformity  with  this  recommendation,  the  Eastern  Synod, 
which  met  at  Lancaster  the  following  year,  1864,  resolved  that 
a  Committee  should  be  appointed  to  revise  the  Provisional 
Liturgy,  so  as  to  have  it  in  readiness  for  being  presented  in  the 
way  required,  to  the  next  General  Synod. 

But  only  see  now  what  a  mess  is  made  of  all  this  by  Dr. 
Bomberger,  in  his  morbid  desire  to  criminate  the  Liturgical 
Committee.  Their  relation  to  the  Synod  throughout,  in  his 
view,  was   one   of  disobedience  and   perverse   unfaithfulness. 


OF   THE    NEW    LITURGY.  35 

The  work  which  Synod  had  expressly  put  upon  them,  tlirce 
years  before,  they  had  failed  to  perform.     Nay,  they  had  even 
succeeded  at  Chambersburg,  in  1862,  in  getting  it  indefinitely 
postponed;  thus  "gaining  their  point,"  we  are  told,  which  was 
time,  in  the  interest  of  their  "  extreme  ritualistic  views."     How 
the  Synod   could    stand  such  treatment,  was  wonderful;  yet 
stand  it  the  Synod  did,  even  to  the  extent  of  itself  doing,  un- 
asked, in   this   last  case,  all  the  Committee  secretly  wished : 
wearied  and  worried  out  of  all  patience,  it  would  seem,  by  the 
contradiction  it  was  called  to  endure,  and  ready,  at  last,  to  do 
any  thing,  just  for  the  privilege  of  being  allowed  to  adjourn. 
Now,  however,  in  1864,  one  is  pleased  to  find  a  much-abused 
Church  freeing  herself  at  long  last  from  the  badgering  and  brow- 
beating to  which  she  has  been  subjected,  by  her  public  servants, 
for  so  many  years.     In  all  conscience,  the  tragi-comic  drama 
has  been  carried  far  enough;  let   it,  then,  come  to   an  end. 
"It  was  evident,"  says  Dr.  Bomberger,  speaking  of  the  crisis 
to  which  things  had  come,  "that  no  farther  delay  would  be 
tolerated.     Patient   as   the  Church   had    always  shown  itself, 
even   almost  to  weakness,   toward  the  private  views  and  de- 
sires of  some  of  her  leading  men,  and  tolerant  of  what  often 
wore  the  semblance  of  disobedience  and  dictation — tolerant  as 
scarcely  any  other  Church  had  ever  been  in  similar  circum- 
stances—it was  manifest  that  the  action  of  the  last  two  Synods 
(the  General  and  the  Eastern),  plainly  meant  that  the  work 
must  now  be  done."     All  praise,  especially  to  the  Lancaster 
Synod  of  1864 ;  it  knows  wha*  it  means  in  this  business ;  and 
it  means  noAv  to  have  it  done. 

Now  then,  first  of  all,  for  the  agency  to  be  employed  in  the 
resumption  of  the  work.  The  old  Committee  is  officially  dead, 
and  out  of  the  way;  Uvice  plucked  up  by  the  roots;  and  after 
all  its  past  oifences,  Ave  might  imagine,  not  to  be  thought  of 
awain  in  the  present  case.  Let  there  be  at  least  a  wholesome 
reconstruction,  leaving  out  a  part  of  the  old  membership,  and 
bringing  into  the  room  of  it  a  new  membership  in  sympathy  with 
Dr.  Bombero-er.  But  can  we  believe  our  senses?  This  Lan- 
caster Synod  reiterates  the  madness  of  the  Easton  Synod.     It 


36  HISTORICAL   VINDICATION 

is  the  old  Liturgical  Committee,  whicli  is  once  more  summoned 
to  go  forward  with  their  old  work.  Not  a  man  of  them  is  ex- 
cused; and  strangest  of  all,  to  fill  the  places  of  the  Rev.  Dr. 
Heiner  and  Elder  Heyser  (deceased),  we  find  now  added  to  the 
Committee  the  names  of  the  Rev.  Thomas  G.  Apple  and  Dr.  L. 
H.  Steiner;  men  known  by  every  body  to  be  in  no  sympathy 
whatever  with  Dr.  Bomberger  in  his  late  minority  stand-point, 
but,  on  the  contrary,  in  full  sympathy  with  the  majority  stand- 
point opposed  by  him — and  for  that  very  reason  also  dignified 
with  this  appointment ! 

In  this  new  commission,  says  Dr.  Bomberger,  "no  instruc- 
tions are  given  for  the  guidance  and  government  of  the  Com- 
mittee; but  it  is  presumed,  that  no  one  will  call  in  question  the 
continued  force  of  previous  directions."  That  is  (according  to 
his  monstrous  hypothesis),  after  all  that  had  gone  before;  after 
the  Baltimore  instructions,  and  the  sense  put  upon  them  by  the 
Committee;  after  the  preparation  of  the  Provisional  Liturgy 
openly  on  this  scheme;  after  the  Easton  instructions  in  regard 
to  a  revision,  and  the  way  in  which  these  also  were  openly  taken 
by  the  Committee;  and  above  all,  after  the  strong,  not  to  say 
extreme  statement  they  had  made  of  their  views  in  the  tract 
offered  to  the  Synod  of  Chambersburg:  after  all  this,  we  say, 
the  Synod  of  Lancaster,  now  in  1864,  having  re-constituted  the 
same  Committee,  and  filled  out  its  vacancies  with  men  known  to 
be  of  one  mind  with  it  in  all  it  had  been  doing  and  trying  to  do 
thus  far;  and  now  saying  to  it,  without  farther  direction,  "Go 
on,  and  complete  your  work;"  did  not  mean  at  all  that  they 
should  follow  out  their  past  profession  of  principles  aiid  views, 
but  intended  just  the  opposite  of  this — namely,  that  they  had 
been  wrong  all  along,  and  were  now  expected  to  take  up  and 
perfect  their  unfinished  work,  in  what  Dr.  Bomberger  held  to  be 
the  way  the  Church  had  wanted  it  from  the  beginning.  Sim- 
ply to  state  the  case,  is  to  make  it  ridiculous. 

It  is,  in  truth,  sheer  nonsense.  The  Synod  knew  perfectly 
well  where  the  Committee  stood  in  regard  to  the  whole  subject, 
and  with  this  knowledge  re-appointed  them,  and  bid  them  re- 
sume their  work,  Avithout  one  syllable  of  qualifying  direction. 


OF   THE    NEW    LITURGY.  37 

How  was  it  possible,  in  these  circumstances,  that  the  Committee 
should  not  take  this  for  a  full  and  formal  authorization  to  go 
on  as  they  had  been  doing  before,  and  to  perfect  their  work  in 
its  own  order  and  kind,  not  by  pulling  it  to  pieces,  but  by  bring- 
ing it  into  round  unity  and  harmony  within  itself  as  an  altar 
liturgy?  They  did  so  understand  the  Synod,  and  addressed 
themselves  now  vigorously  to  the  task  assigned  them,  with  full 
determination  to  carry  it  out  in  this  way. 

Dr.  Bomberger,  however,  was  still  obstinate.  When  the  Com- 
mittee met,  he  took  his  old  ground  again;  maintained  that  wo 
were  utterly  mistaken  in  supposing  our  scheme  of  revision  to  be 
approved  by  the  Church;  contended  that  Synod  had,  in  fact 
(God  knows  when  or  where),  endorsed  Ids  scheme,  as  the  only 
one  to  be  thought  of  in  the  case;  and  wondered  now,  that  all 
the  rest  of  us  should  not  give  up  at  once  to  his  single  judgment, 
where  we  were  so  clearly  wrong,  and  he  himself  so  clearly  right. 
We  could  not,  of  course,  yield  to  this ;  and  after  some  friendly 
-  talk  on  the  subject,  it  was  concluded  that  we,  who  were  the  ma- 
"  jority,  and  the  next  thing  to  the  whole  of  the  Committee,  should 
go  on  with  the  work  of  revision  in  our  own  way;  while  Dr.  Bom- 
berger would  simply  co-operate  with  us  as  far  as  he  could,  with- 
out being  understood  to  recede  at  all  from  his  protest  against 
what  seemed  to  him  wrong.  He  himself  urged  us  to  go  forward 
in  this  way ;  and  for  a  time  continued  to  work  with  us,  as  plea- 
santly as  could  be  desired. 

But  this  did  not  last.  As  the  revision  advanced,  and  gave 
promise  of  being  successfully  carried  through  in  its  own  line. 
Dr.  Bomberger  found  it  more  than  he  could  stomach.  His  dis- 
content appears  to  have  reached  its  climax,  when  the  Committee 
reported  progress  to  the  Synod  of  Lewisburg,  in  18G5,  and  sub- 
mitted their  new  forms  for  common  Sunday  Service  and  for  the 
Holy  Communion,  as  specimens  of  the  manner  in  which  they 
were  carrying  on  their  work.  "  No  opinion  upon  the  merits  of 
these  forms,"  he  says,  "was  expressed  by  Synod.""  This  is 
very  true.  But  this  silence,  in  the  circumstances,  amounted  to 
a  great  deal.  Dr.  Bomberger  was  there,  and  made  a  violent 
speech  against  the  course  the  Committee  were  pursuing;  so  elo- 


38  HISTORICAL   VINDICATION 

(juently  depicting  the  mischief  which  was  to  come  of  it,  that 
one  good  brother,  at  least  (innocent  of  much  previous  knowledge 
on  the  subject),  was  led  to  cry  out,  it  is  said,  in  a  sort  of  panic 
fright,  "Mr.  President,  can't  we  stop  the  Liturgy?"  He  tells 
us  now,  moreover,  in  his  historical  tract,  that  these  very  speci- 
men forms  are  the  worst  part  of  what  he  considers  worthy  of 
condemnation  in  the  Revised  Liturgy.  The  Lord's  day  service 
is,  in  his  view,  "intensely  ritualistic;"  and  the  Communion  ser- 
vice is  denounced  as  "essentially  inconsistent  with  the  devo- 
tional genius  of  the  Reformed  Church,  and  utterly  irreconcilable 
with  the  apostolic  and  primitive  conception  of  the  ordinance;" 
although  it  is,  in  fact,  in  no  particular  point  different  from  the 
form  in  the  Provisional  Liturgy,  which  this  same  Dr.  Bomberger 
consented  to  in  1857,  and  publicly  commended  to  the  Church  as 
being  not  only  good,  but  very  good — ^'■nothing  in  the  way  of 
outward  help  being  so  well  calculated  indeed  (in  his  full  con- 
viction), to  promote  the  worthy  and  comfortable  observance  of 
the  Holy  Supper,  as  the  devout  perusal"  of  just  this  service. 
These  two  pattern  services,  we  say,  the  Synod  had  before  it  in 
1865  at  Lewisburg,  with  the  benefit  of  Dr.  Bomberger's  damna- 
tory criticism.  And  what  now  did  the  Synod  do ?  "Expressed 
no  opinion!"  we  are  told.  Oh,  no,  nothing  of  that  sort;  only 
paid  no  attention  to  Dr.  Bomberger's  damnatory  criticism ;  and 
instead  of  stopping  the  Liturgy,  ordered  it  on  to  completion. 
That  was  all  the  Synod  did. 

That  was  enough,  however,  for  Dr.  Bomberger.  He  sent  us 
word  by  letter  afterwards,  that  he  could  take  no  farther  part 
with  us  in  our  work ;  we  were  not  doing,  he  would  still  have  it, 
what  Synod  wanted  us  to  do;  and  so  he  would  appeal  to  Synod 
against  us  when  it  next  met.  A  sort  of  appellation,  one  might 
say,  from  Philip  drunk,  to  the  same  Phihp  when  it  was  hoped 
he  might  be  sober. 

The  Committee  went  on,  and  finished  their  work ;  finished  it 
greatly  to  their  own  satisfaction ;  not  simply  because  they  were 
through  with  it,  but  because  they  felt  that  they  had  been  suc- 
cessful in  bringing  the  book  into  a  form  suitable  to  the  wants  of 
the  Church,  and  likely  now  to  come  at  last  into  general  use. 


OF   TUE    NEW    LITURGY.  39 

In  this  respect,  my  own  feeling  with  regard  to  the  Revised 
Litur<^y  was  altogether  different,  from  what  it  had  ever  been  with 
regard  to  the  Provisional  Liturgy. 

Thus  completed,  the  work  was  presented,  with  a  very  brief 
report,  to  the  Synod,  which  met  last  October  at  York,  under 
the  title:  An  Order  of  Worship  for  the  Reformed  Church. 
No  sooner  was  this  done,  than  Dr.  Bomberger  was  on  his  feet 
ao-ain,  to  spring  upon  the  house  another  of  his  unparliamentary 
interruptions,  in  the  form  of  a  long,  elaborate,  minority  coun- 
ter-report ;  which  was  offered  as  an  apology  for  his  not  having 
acted  with  the  Committee,  but  amounted,  in  fact,  to  a  wholesale 
onslaught  upon  the  work  itself,  and  a  most  libellous  defamation 
of  the  views  and  motives  of  all,  who  had  been  concerned  in 
bringing  it  out.  A  libel,  which  has  since  been  repeated  de- 
liberately and  at  large,  in  his  history  of  what  he  calls  the 
Ritualistic  Movement  in  the  German  Reformed  Church.  It  is 
wonderful  with  what  effrontery,  in  this  counter-report  of  his  at 
York,  he  charges  the  entire  Liturgical  Committee  (all  except 
himself),  as  having  been  engaged,  throughout,  in  a  course  of 
clear  disobedience  to  the  will  and  command  of  Synod,  while  he, 
singly  and  alone,  had  been  laboring  all  along  to  set  our  re- 
fractory skulls  right — but  laboring,  alas,  in  vain.  He  could 
not  work  with  the  Committee,  it  seems,  because  the  Committee, 
ten  against  one,  would  not  think  as  he  did,  but  stubbornly  in- 
sisted on  thinking  for  themselves.  Hence,  these  tears.  "In 
this  spirit,  and  for  such  reasons,"  he  whines,  "I  come  back  to 
this  Synod  to-day  from  the  mission  upon  which  you  sent  me. 
I  could  not  perform  the  duties  of  that  mission  in  what  I  am 
most  fully  persuaded  is  the  spirit  and  letter  of  your  instructions, 
because  my  associates  in  the  work" — thick-headed,  stiff-necked 
jurymen  as  they  all  are — "would  not  aid  me  in  such  an  execu- 
tion of  our  trust.  I  would  not  perform  them  in  any  other  way, 
not  even  to  gratify  any  most  favorite,  subjective,  personal 
views  and  tastes,  because  I  believed  that  to  do  so  involved  diso- 
bedience to  my  ecclesiastical  superior," — the  Synod,  namely, 
which  had  been,  all  along,  backing  the  Committee  in  their  course — 


40  HISTORICAL   VINDICATION 

"disloyalty  to  my  Church,  and  infinite  hazard  to  our  spiritual 
peace  and  edification." 

The  action  of  the  Synod  of  York,  on  the  Revised  Liturgy,  is 
comprehended  in  a  special  report,  adopted  in  regard  to  it,  which 
may  be  allowed  to  speak  for  itself.  After  a  brief  general  re- 
view of  the  liturgical  movement,  and  the  instructions  of  Synod 
with  reference  to  it  from  time  to  time,  the  report  goes  on  to 
say  of  the  Committee  and  their  woi'k,  as  follows : 

"These  instructions,  after  much  diligent  labor,  have  been 
faithfully  carried  out,  and,  as  the  result  of  their  labors,  con- 
tinued for  the  last  three  years,  embracing  forty-five  sessions  in 
all,  we  have  now  before  us  the  Revised  Liturgy,  printed  and 
prepared  for  the  examination  of  Synod.  The  work  bears  on 
its  face  the  indications  of  unwearied  patience  and  perseverance, 
of  self-denying  toil,  of  an  elevated  and  devotional  taste,  of  much 
study  and  reflection,  and  an  undeniably  purpose  to  serve  the 
Church  and  the  cause  of  Christ.  It  is  questionable,  whether 
more  labor  and  earnestness  of  purpose  have  ever  been  bestowed 
on  any  similar  work,  in  Europe  or  in  this  country." — "The 
Liturgy,  now  presented  to  the  Church,  is  fully  as  much  the 
work  of  the  Synod  as  of  the  Committee.  It  must  be  conceded, 
that  the  Committee  have  acted  with  prudence  and  respect  for 
the  instructions  of  Synod,  at  each  step  they  have  undertaken 
in  the  prosecution  of  their  labors,  and  that  all  along  they  have 
been  prompted  and  urged  forward  in  their  work  by  the  special 
action  of  the  Synod.  It  is,  therefore,  the  legitimate  child  of 
this  Synod.  Whether  it  will  ever  come  into  general  use  among 
our  congregations  or  not,  it  is  evident  that  for  all  time  to  come, 
it  will  be  a  monument  to  the  learning,  ability,  piety,  and  devo- 
tion of  its  authors  to  the  liturgical  idea,  which  they  have  so 
well  comprehended." 

Then  follow  these  three  resolutions  : 

"1.  Resolved,  That  our  thanks  are  due,  and  are  hereby  ren- 
dered, to  the  great  Head  of  the  Church,  that  this  work,  so  far 
as  Synod  is  concerned  with  it,  has  been  brought  to  a  termina- 
tion." 

"2.  Resolved,  That  the  thanks  of  the  Synod  are  hereby  ten- 


OF   THE    NEW    LITURGY.  41 

dered  to  the  Committee,  for  the  zeal,  ability,  and  unrequited 
toil,  which  thej  have  displayed  in  the  prosecution  of  their  work, 
from  the  beginning  to  the  end. 

"  3.  Resolved,  That  the  Revised  Liturgy  be  referred  to  the 
General  Synod  for  action,  and  that,  in  the  meantime,  the  op- 
tional use  of  the  Revised  Liturgy  be  authorized,  in  the  place  of 
the  Provisional  Liturgy,  within  the  limits  of  the  Eastern  Sj^nod, 
until  the  whole  question  be  finally  settled  by  the  various  Classes 
and  the  General  Synod,  according  to  the  Constitution  of  our 
Church." 

By  this  action,  the  new  Liturgy  came  into  the  hands  of  the 
late  General  Synod  at  Dayton,  in  conformity  with  the  order 
issued  three  years  before,  by  the  General  Synod  of  Pittsburg; 
and  now  it  was,  that  its  friends  were  brought  first  fully  to  see, 
what  manner  of  spirit  it  was  that  actuated  and  ruled  the  oppo- 
sition, which  had  begun  to  work  against  it.  This  opposition 
sought  nothing  less  than  the  destruction  of  the  young  child's 
life.  Although  it  had  been  declared  all  along,  that  it  was  such 
an  order  of  worship  as  the  people  did  not  want,  and  never  could 
be  brought  to  receive  with  any  sort  of  favor,  yet,  now  that  it 
stood  there  asking  barely  permission  to  live,  and  nothing  more, 
it  was  felt  that  this  would  be  unsafe.  Who  could  tell  what 
power  might  be  slumbering  in  that  gentle,  peaceful  form,  after 
all?  "Herod,  and  all  Jerusalem  with  him,  was  troubled;"  and 
so  the  fiat  went  forth,  not  openly  altogether,  but,  as  it  were,  in 
secret:  "Let  the  Liturgy  die,  before  it  is  well  born;  let  it  pass 
away  as  a  hidden,  untimely  birth,  and  become  thus  as  though  it 
had  never  been." 

We  have  seen  before,  that  permission  had. been  granted  to 
the  Western  Synod,  to  form  a  Liturgy  of  their  own.  They  had 
not  liked  the  Provisional  Liturgy  of  the  East ;  let  them  get  up, 
then,  a  different  order  of  worship  to  suit  themselves,  and  have 
it  ready  to  present,  also,  to  the  next  General  Synod.  They  did 
put  their  hand  to  this  task.  A  Liturgical  Committee  was  ap- 
pointed to  carry  it  forward;  Avhich  also  went  bravely  to  work, 
and  in  due  time  got  forth  some  interesting  specimens  of  what 
they  were  able  to  do  in  this  line.     But  there  the  movement 


42  HISTORICAL   VINDICATION 

came  to  an  inglorious  end.  The  specimen  forms  did  not  prove 
satisfactory,  either  to  the  public  at  large  or  to  the  Committee 
themselves.  The  Complete  Manual,  as  it  was  christened  before- 
hand, got  no  farther  toward  completeness;  and  so,  when  we 
came  together  in  General  Synod  at  Dayton,  we  found  no  such 
work  of  the  Western  Synod  there,  but  only  an  official  act  on 
their  minutes,  asking  for  more  time  to  get  it  ready. 

What  we  did  find  there  very  soon,  however,  was  a  pretty 
general  determination  on  the  part  of  these  Western  brethren  to 
put  out  of  the  way  the  Revised  Liturgy  of  the  Eastern  Church, 
now  happily  brought  within  their  clutches,  as  it  might  seem, 
for  this  very  purpose. 

Whence,  we  may  well  ask,  such  unbecoming  animosity  in 
breasts  otherwise  generous  and  good?  Partly,  of  course,  from 
what  we  may  call  the  natural  opposition  of  the  Western  reli- 
gious spirit  to  the  whole  idea  of  worship,  under  a  liturgical 
form.  But  partly,  also,  beyond  all  doubt,  from  the  factious  in- 
dustry and  zeal  of  Dr.  Bomberger  and  his  clique  in  the  East; 
who  all  along,  but  more  especially  of  late,  had  been  working  upon 
this  prejudice,  and  trying  to  persuade  the  Church  in  the  West, 
that  all  things  were  going  wrong  in  the  Eastern  Synod,  both 
theologically  and  ecclesiastically;  and  that  the  salvation  of  the 
German  Reformed  Church,  in  America,  now  depended  on  the 
rising  star  of  empire  in  the  Synod  of  Ohio  and  the  Adjacent 
States.  This  factious  element  had  claimed,  indeed,  as  we  have 
seen,  to  be  the  reigning  power  in  the  Eastern  Synod  itself;  but 
it  had  an  uncomfortable  sense  still,  of  having  been  always,  more 
or  less,  worsted  there  in  its  anti-liturgical  conflicts ;  and  it  was 
a  great  satisfaction  for  it  now,  therefore,  to  think  of  joining 
hands  with  this  ultramontane  jealousy  at  Dayton,  so  as  to  roll 
off  from  the  German  Reformed  Church,  at  once  and  forever, 
the  reproach  now  resting  upon  it  from  the  liturgical  movement. 
No  pains,  accordingly,  were  spared,  to  win  the  political  game. 
Dr.  Bomberger's  tract,  on  the  "Ritualistic  Movement,"  was 
got  out  hastily,  and  circulated  far  and  wide.  The  Western 
Missionary  was  set  to  sounding  a  continuous  alarm  on  the  same 
theme.     Ominous,  bad-sounding  words,  were  made  to  fall  on  all 


OF   THE    NEW    LITURGY.  43 

sides  upon  the  ears  of  the  people.  Appeals  were  addressed  to 
their  prejudices  and  their  fears.  All  was  done  that  could  be 
done,  to  have  the  Liturgy  prejudged  and  condemned,  before  it 
was  either  seen  or  read. 

We  all  felt  this  when  we  got  to  Dayton.  There  was  an  ele- 
ment at  work  around  us,  that  boded  no  good,  but  harm  only, 
to  the  new  Order  of  Worship.  The  opposition  to  it  was  strong ; 
and  it  was  called  to  give  account  of  itself  at  what  was,  in  one 
sense,  a  foreign  bar.  The  Western  delegation  was  full;  the 
delegation  from  the  East,  especially  in  the  case  of  the  Elders, 
was  only  partially  present.  It  was  painfully  evident,  moreover, 
that  the  Western  delegation  itself  had  no  power,  as  things  stood 
in  the  West,  to  be  entirely  independent  and  free.  Men  could 
not  vote  in  all  cases  as  they  might  wish ;  but  had  to  do  it,  in 
some  cases  at  least,  as  they  must. 

Still  would  the  brethren  of  the  Western  Synod  seriously  join 
hands  with  a  miserable  faction  of  the  Eastern  Synod,  to  subvert 
at  one  blow,  in  such  a  case  as  this,  a  work  which  had  cost  this 
last  so  many  years  of  care  and  labor?  That  was  hardly  to  be 
imagined  beforehand ;  and  I  must  confess  it  filled  me  with  sur- 
prise, when  I  found  that  this,  and  nothing  less  than  this,  was 
what  these  Western  brethren  really  proposed  to  do.  We  had 
it  all  brought  out  at  last  in  the  minority  report,  as  it  was  called, 
on  the  subject  of  the  Revised  Liturgy,  which  every  effort  was 
made  to  have  substituted  for  the  majority  report  allowing  its 
optional  use.  In  this  minority  paper,  drawn  up  by  Professor 
Good  of  Tiffin,  a  long  show  of  reasons  was  offered  to  prove  that 
the  Liturgy  would  not  answer  for  the  use  of  the  Church;  and 
on  the  ground  of  these  reasons,  preferred  without  any  real  exa- 
mination of  the  book,  the  Synod  was  now  asked  to  give  judg- 
ment against  it,  without  farther  knowledge  or  inquiry ;  and  to 
put  it,  along  with  the  unfinished  and  abortive  material  of  the 
Western  Synod,  into  the  hands  of  a  new  Committee ;  who  should 
tlicn  go  on  to  cut  and  patch  all,  at  their  pleasure,  into  some  un- 
known shape,  which,  it  was  hoped,  might  satisfy  at  last  the  litur- 
gical necessities  of  the  German  Reformed  Church. 

Could  any  thing  well  be  more  ironically  absurd  ?     It  was  more 


44  HISTORICAL  VINDICATION 

than  absurd,  however;  it  was  monstrous.  Only  look  at  the 
case.  Here  was  the  Eastern  Synod,  which  had  been  working 
now  through  seventeen  years  to  make  a  Liturgy.  Its  best 
strength,  talent,  learning,  piety,  patience,  and  perseverance,  had 
been  expended  upon  the  object.  Finally,  after  so  long  a  time, 
the  movement  was  felt  to  be  crowned  with  success.  It  had 
issued  the  Revised  Liturgy,  which  was  now  submitted  to 
the  General  Synod,  according  to  previous  order,  with  the 
proud  feeling  of  a  duty  well  performed.  For  no  one  presumed 
to  call  in  question  the  general  merits  of  the  book.  It  was  al- 
lowed on  all  hands  to  be  of  the  first  order  in  its  kind.  It  was, 
in  this  respect,  an  ornament  and  honor  to  the  Church  to  which 
it  owed  its  being.  And  Jiow,  now,  was  it  proposed  to  receive 
the  work  in  the  General  Synod?  The  proposition,  in  plain 
English,  was  nothing  more  nor  less  than  this;  that  the  General 
Synod  should  take  the  work  out  of  the  hands  of  the  Eastern 
Synod,  and  just  then  and  there,  without  farther  ceremony,  crush 
it  ignominiously  out  of  existence.  What !  without  ever  looking 
at  it  in  the  way  of  examination  ?  without  giving  it  so  much  as  a 
chance  to  be  known  and  judged  on  its  own  merits?  Exactly 
so ;  let  it  perish  without  any  troublesome  and  useless  formality 
of  this  sort.  But  how  is  it  expected  that  this  can  be  done? 
Will  the  brethren  of  the  Eastern  Synod  consent  to  be  robbed  of 
what  has  cost  them  so  much,  in  such  summary  and  ruthless 
style?  It  matters  not;  the  book  is  now  in  the  hands  of  the 
General  Synod;  only  let  the  brethren  of  the  West,  by  a  sec- 
tional vote,  join  hand  in  hand  with  Dr.  Bomberger  and  his  com- 
pany, and  they  will  be  able,  it  is  to  be  hoped,  to  do  with  it  what 
they  please.  Still,  on  what  plea  is  all  this  violence  to  be  done? 
What  crime  is  charged  upon  the  Liturgy  ?  What  evil  has  it 
wrought,  to  justify  such  wholesale  rejection?  How  are  those 
who  are  asked  to  join  in  this  vote  (ministers  and  elders),  to 
know  that  it  deserves  such  merciless  treatment  at  their  hands  ? 
Their  knowledge  is  not  needed;  their  ignorance  will  answer  just 
as  well ;  nay,  the  less  they  know  of  the  matter,  the  better.  They 
will  be  the  more  sure  to  vote  then,  as  they  are  wanted  to  vote. 
Not  one  Western  minister  in  ten,  it  is  true,  has  examined  the 


OF   THE   NEW   LITURGY.  45 

book ;  not  one  Western  elder  in  ten,  probably,  has  so  much  as 
even  looked  into  it.  But  wliat  of  all  that?  Have  thej  not  Dr. 
Bomberger's  word  for  it,  that  it  is  full  of  all  sorts  of  mischief? 
Has  he  not  published  a  tract  to  put  it  down  ?  Has  not  this  been 
echoed  bj  the  "Western  Missionary  ?"  Are  not  Professors  Good 
and  Rust,  and  Williard,  all  here  to  make  speeches  against  it  ? 
What  need  have  we  farther  for  witnesses?  The  power  seems  to 
be  providentially  in  our  hands.  No  time  so  favorable  for  the  deed 
we  meditate  may  ever  occur  again.  Let  the  Revised  Liturgy  of 
the  Eastern  Synod  die ! 

A  beautiful  spectacle  truly,  was  it  not,  this  attempt  to  turn 
the  General  Synod,  at  its  second  meeting,  into  an  organ,  throuo-h 
which  the  Synod  of  the  West  might  be  able  to  rule,  as  with  a 
rod  of  iron,  the  mother  Synod  of  the  East ! 

One  cannot  help  wondering  and  asking,  what  would  have 
come  of  the  radical  proceeding,  if  it  had  been  crowned  with  suc- 
cess. How  would  the  brethren  have  disposed  of  the  Liturfry, 
once  fairly  in  their  hands?  It  was  to  have  gone  into  the  hands 
of  a  new  Committee,  to  be  taken  to  pieces  and  reconstructed  at 
their  pleasure.  But  where  was  the  Committee  to  be  found  for 
such  work  ?  The  old  Committee,  of  course,  could  not  have  been 
thought  of  in  the  case ;  neither  was  it  to  be  imagined  that  any 
member  of  it  would  consent  to  take  part  in  the  service,  unless 
it  were  Dr.  Bomberger.  Still  farther,  no  friend  of  the  Liturgy 
in  the  Eastern  Synod  could  have  had  any  thing  to  do  with  it. 
It  must  have  been,  then,  mainly  a  Western  Committee,  com- 
posed of  such  men  as  the  Brethren  Williard,  J.  H.  Good,  Rust,  and 
M.  Stern,  in  conjunction  with  Dr.  Bomberger,  and  one  or  two 
others  that  may  be  imagined,  from  the  East.  The  respectability 
of  such  a  Committee,  in  itself  considered,  need  not  be  called  in 
question.  But  the  idea  of  placing  the  finished  work  of  the  East- 
ern Synod  in  its  hands,  as  so  much  material  simply,  along  with 
the  botched  stuff  previously  prepared  in  the  West,  to  be  extem- 
porized now  into  new  and  better  form  !  SpectaUim  admissi  vi- 
sum teneatis,  amici? 

Our  good  Western  brethren  have  reason  to  be  thankful,  that 
the  farce  was  not  allowed  to  play  itself  out  to  this  ridiculous 


46  HISTORICAL  VINDICATION 

lengtli.  Some  of  them,  no  doubt,  are  already  ashamed  of  what 
they  tried  to  do  at  Dayton,  and  pleased  with  their  own  defeat ; 
and  it  will  not  be  strange  at  all,  if  before  the  meeting  of  the 
next  General  Synod  in  Philadelphia,  the  cause  of  the  Liturgy 
shall  be  found  to  be  quite  as  strong  in  the  West,  as  it  has  now 
shown  itself  to  be  in  the  East, 

In  the  circumstances  which  have  been  described,  it  was  a 
great  victory  that  was  wrought  in  favor  of  this  cause  at  Dayton ; 
far  beyond  all  it  might  appear  to  be  to  superficial  observation. 
The  friends  of  the  Liturgy  knew  then,  and  know  now,  that  the 
vote  in  its  favor  meant  a  great  deal  more  than  the  difference 
simply  of  the  yeas  and  nays  recorded  in  it;  and  the  enemies  of 
the  Liturgy  know  the  same  thing.  The  true  significance  of  the 
vote  lies  in  the  fact,  that  it  was  a  struggle  of  the  East  to  save 
its  own  cause  here,  against  a  faction  which  sought,  by  help  of 
the  West,  to  destroy  it — a  struggle,  at  the  same  time,  which  had 
to  be  maintained  on  Western  ground.  In  this  character,  the 
stand  made  in  favor  of  the  Liturgy  was  powerfully  felt  in  the 
West  itself.  There  was  a  moral  superiority  gained  by  the  argu- 
ment in  its  behalf,  which  told  upon  the  General  Synod,  and  upon 
the  outside  community,  with  far  wider  and  deeper  effect  than 
any  counting  of  votes;  which  has  been  w^orking  for  good  since, 
and  which  will  continue  to  work  for  good  still  through  a  long 
time  to  come.  But  more  important  than  all  this,  was  the  way 
the  conflict  served  to  bring  out  the  thought  and  feeling  of  the 
Eastern  Synod  in  regard  to  the  great  interest  which  was  here 
at  stake,  and  to  show  clearly  where  it  stood,  and  intended  to 
stand,  on  the  issue  which  had  been  raised  concerning  it.  The 
only  vote  that  could  be  considered  of  material  account  in  the  case 
was  the  vote  of  the  East,  including  the  Westmoreland  Classis. 
It  was  properly  an  Eastern  question  that  was  to  be  decided. 
The  voice  of  the  West  in  regard  to  it  meant  nothing;  because 
it  was  uttered,  to  a  large  extent,  in  profound  ignorance  of  the 
subject,  and  under  tlie  power  of  blind,  unreasoning  prejudice. 
The  Liturgy  belonged  properly  to  the  Eastern  Synod ;  was  the 
child  of  the  Eastern  Synod;  had  its  native  home  in  the  Eastern 
Synod;  and  by  the  judgment  of  the  Eastern  Synod  was  destined 


OF   THE    NEW   LIEURGY.  4T 

finally  to  stand  or  fall.  In  this  view,  as  all  may  easily  sec,  the 
vote  of  the  Eastern  delegation  at  Dayton  was  an  overwhelming 
decision  in  its  favor.  What  an  extinguisher  on  Dr.  Bomberger's 
slanderous  tract;  the  burden  of  which  is  throughout,  that  the 
Liturgical  Committee  had  obstinately  refused  all  along  to  do 
what  the  Synod  wanted  them  to  do,  and  had  now  finally,  with 
this  Revised  Liturgy  of  theirs,  capped  the  climax  of  their  dis- 
obedience, in  a  way  which  the  Synod  could  no  longer  possibly 
endure.  We  have  seen  before  how  the  action  of  one  Synod 
after  another,  on  to  the  very  last  one  at  York,  had  given 
the  lie  practically  to  this  monstrous  ftnagination.  But  never 
was  this  done  to  greater  purpose  than  by  the  Eastern  vote  in 
favor  of  the  new  Liturgy  at  Dayton.  Had  the  entire  Eastern 
delegation  been  at  hand,  the  vote  would  have  l?een  a  great  deal 
stronger.  As  it  was,  we  all  know  in  how  meagre  a  minority  it 
left  Dr.  Bomberger  and  his  colleagues.  Two  of  these  colleagues, 
besides,  were  the  delegates  from  the  Classis  of  North  Carolina ; 
which  has  been  in  a  state  of  ecclesiastical  secession  from  the 
Synod,  ever  since  the  present  liturgical  movement  commenced ; 
and  whose  representatives,  therefore,  allowed  themselves,  with 
very  bad  grace  certainly,  to  be  brought  North  at  this  time,  for 
the  purpose  of  meddling  with  it  in  any  such  factious  way.  Aside 
from  these  ciphers,  the  clerical  vote  on  that  side  stood  next 
thing  to  nothing.  And  it  was  little,  if  any  thing  better,  with 
the  lay  vote.  Our  Eastern  Eldership,  after  all  the  attempts 
which  had  been  made  to  alarm  their  fears,  and  set  them  in  array 
against  their  Ministers,  went  almost  in  a  body  in  favor  of  the 
Liturgy.  Shall  we  hear  any  thing  more  of  a  want  of  sympathy 
and  good  understanding  between  the  Synod  and  its  Committee, 
on  this  subject? 

What  has  just  been  said,  does  not  mean,  of  course,  that  the 
Revised  Liturgy  has  been  endorsed  and  ratified,  in  form,  by 
what  was  done  in  its  favor  at  Dayton.  The  vote  there,  we  all 
know,  was  not  intended  to  do  any  thing  of  that  sort.  The  time 
for  any  thing  of  that  sort  had  not  yet  come.  The  vote  meant 
simply,  that  the  Liturgy  should  have  fair  play ;  that,  as  a  work 
of  art,  it  should  not  be  subjected  to  the  vandalism  of  being 


48  HISTORICAL   VINDICATION 

made  so  much  raw  material  merely,  for  the  manufacture  of 
another  work  (not  of  art),  in  the  hands  of  Messrs.  Good,  Rust, 
Bomberger  &  Co. ;  that  the  Eastern  Synod  should  not  be  re- 
quired to  stultify  itself,  by  abandoning  both  the  work  and  the 
Committee  that  made  it,  to  the  tender  mercies  of  a  fanatical 
crusade,  got  up  to  lynch  it  out  of  existence,  without  judge  or 
jury;  that  after  having  been  brought,  through  long  years  of 
learned  and  laborious  preparation,  under  the  eye  and  ordering 
hand  of  the  Synod,  to  the  perfect  working  form  it  had  now 
reached,  it  should  not  be  kicked  to  the  one  side  by  the  ignorant 
prejudice  of  such  as  knew  nothing  about  it,  but  should  have,  at 
least,  the  opportunity  of  coming  before  the  people,  to  be  tried 
by  them  on  its  own  merits.  This  is  what  the  action,  at  Dayton, 
meant;  nothing  more.  But  this,  in  the  circumstances,  was 
much.  Nobly  has  it  served  to  redeem  the  honor  of  the  Eastern 
Synod,  and  to  vindicate  the  good  name  of  its  grossly  calum- 
niated Liturgical  Committee. 

So  much  for  the  historical  defence  of  the  Liturgy.  How  far 
the  work  itself,  in  the  form  in  which  it  is  now  before  the  pub- 
lic, may  prove  satisfactory  to  the  Church,  remains  yet  to  be 
seen.  The  Committee,  with  its  friends  generally,  are  quite 
willing  to  leave  the  settlement  of  that  question  where  it  properly 
belongs,  with  the  people.  They  have  no  wish  to  force  it  into 
use  in  a  single  congregation.  It  is  not  felt  that  the  honor, 
either  of  the  Committee  or  of  the  Synod,  depends,  in  the  case, 
on  what  may  become  of  the  book,  finally,  in  this  way.  Our  ap- 
pointed service  is  done ;  done  faithfully,  and  to  the  best  of  our 
ability.  We  have  got  out  at  last,  what  we  believe  to  be  a  good 
Liturgy,  in  good  working  order;  and  room  is  now  made  for  its 
being  put  to  practical  experiment  among  our  churches.  If  they 
find  it  to  be  what  they  want,  and  are  willing  to  make  use  of  it, 
cither  in  whole  or  in  part,  it  will  be  well.  If  they  find  it  other- 
wise, and  do  not  choose  to  adopt  it,  that  will  be  all  well  too ; 
nobody  will  have  any  reason  to  complain ;  the  thing  will  have 
taken  its  right  course,  and  come  to  its  conclusion  in  a  fair  and 
rio^ht  way.     That  is  all  that  is  wanted  or  wished. 

Neither  let  it  be  imagined,  that  w^  object  at  all  to  having  the 


OF   TUE   NEW    LITURGY.  49 

Liturgy  subjected  to  examination  and  criticism,  ftif  it  cannot 
bear  to  have  its  merits  fairly  and  honestly  inves^^tcd  in  this 
way,  it  ought  not  to  expect  favor.  What  its  friends  complain 
of  is,  not  that  it  should  be  put  upon  trial,  but  that  it  should  be 
attempted  to  put  it  down  without  trial.  Not  that  judgment 
should  be  exercised  upon  its  merits,  but  that  without  any  re- 
gard to  its  merits,  it  should  be  proposed  to  have  it  condemned 
and  set  aside  on  other  grounds  altogether.  The  Liturgy  courts 
enlightened  criticism;  it  deprecates  only  falling  into  the  hands 
of  ignorant  prejudice  or  dishonest  passion.^ 

The  way  is  now  open  to  pass  on  to  the  consideration  of  its 
theological  character. 
4 


50  THEOLOGICAL   VINDICATION 


PART    II. 


THEOLOGICAL  VI^^DICATION   OF   THE  NEW  LITURGY. 


The  discussion  on  tlie  Revised  Liturgy,  at  the  meeting  of  the 
late  General  Synod  in  Dayton,  brought  out  clearly  two  things. 
It  showed  that  the  liturgical  question,  as  it  now  has  place  among 
us  in  the  Reformed  Church,  is  in  truth  a  doctrinal  question  of 
the  deepest  significance;  and  it  showed  also  that  as  a  doctrinal 
question  it  has  to  do,  not  with  one  or  two  points  of  theological 
opinion  simply,  but  with  theology  in  its  universal  view. 

This  accounts  for  the  earnestness  with  which  the  Liturgy  is 
opposed  by  those  who  have  set  themselves  against  it.  To  some 
it  has  no  doubt  appeared  strange,  that  the  book  should  have 
become  an  object  of  such  strong  jealousy  and  dislike.  For  by 
general  confession  now,  we  are  a  liturgical  branch  of  the 
Church  ;  we  allow  the  propriety  of  prescribed  forms  of  worship ; 
we  hold  it  part  of  our  Reformed  right  to  use  them,  or  not  to 
use  them,  as  to  our  congregations  severally  may  seem  best. 
In  conformity  with  this  freedom,  we  have  been  willing  to  let 
liturgies  take  their  course  among  us  heretofore,  with  little  or 
no  attempt  at  anything  like  ecclesiastical  supervision  or  re- 
straint. Our  ministers  might  use  the  old  Palatinate  Liturgy, 
or  some  irresponsible  compilation  handed  down  from  the  last 
century,  or  the  Mayer  Liturgy,  or  any  other  Liturgy  they 
pleased  ;  nobody  felt  called  upon  to  interfere;  all  w^ere  willing 
to  let  ministers  and  people  judge  for  themselves  what  sort  of 
service  might  best  answer  their  wants.  But  in  the  case  of  our 
new  Liturgy,  all  this  tolerant  indifference  has  suddenly  come 


OF   THE   NEW   LITURGY.  51 

to  an  end.     Even  in  its  first  imperfect  form,  as  the  Provisional 
Liturgy,  the  broad  sanction  of  the  Church,  under  which  it  ap- 
peared, was  not  sufiicient  to  protect  it  from  violent  obloquy 
and  assault.     Pains  were  taken  to  create  prejudice  against  it 
on  all  sides ;  it  could  not   be  introduced,  it  was  said,  among 
our  people ;  and  yet,  strangely  enough,  its  influence  was  depre- 
cated with  ominous  apprehension,  as  likely  to  work  mischief 
far  and  wide.     As  the  Revised  Liturgy,  it  is  now  relieved  of 
its  first  defects,  and  brought  into  easy  working  form.     But 
this  has  only  drawn  upon  it  more  apprekensive  jealousy,  and 
more  active  opposition,  than  Avhat  it  had  to  encounter  before. 
Hence  the  onset  made  upon  it  at  Dayton.     That  was  the  cul- 
mination of  a  movement,  which  looked  to  nothing  less  than  the 
violent  suppression  of  the  new  Order  of  Worship  before  it  was 
fairly  presented  to  the  churches.     The  churches,  it  was  still 
said,  could  never  be  brought  to  receive  it ;  but  it  was  held  dan- 
gerous, now  more  than  before,  to  give  them  the  opportunity  of 
deciding  that  point  for  themselves.     Not  only  must  the  book 
not  be  formally  allowed ;  it  must  be  formally  condemned  and 
prohibited  from  use.     The  usual  congregational  liberty  of  the 
Reformed  Church  must  here  come  to  an  end.    For  this  Liturgy 
there  could  be  no  toleration.     The  opposition  to  it  had  grown 
virulent.     It  amounted  to  fanatical  hatred. 

To  some,  we  say,  all  this  may  have  seemed  strange.  But  it 
is  accounted  for  by  the  theological  life  of  the  new  Order  of 
Worship.  Had  the  book  been  a  mere  pulpit  Liturgy,  a  collec- 
tion of  dry  forms  for  the  use  of  the  minister  in  the  usual  style 
of  such  mechanical  helps,  it  would  have  called  forth  no  such 
virulent  opposition.  But  it  was  something  altogether  different 
from  that.  It  carried  with  it  the  spirit  and  power  of  a  true 
altar  Liturgy ;  and  in  this  character  it  was  felt  to  involve,  not 
simply  a  scheme  of  religious  service,  but  a  scheme  also  of  reli- 
gious thought  and  belief,  materially  at  variance  with  precon- 
ceived opinion  in  certain  quarters ;  the  sense  of  which  then 
became  instinctively,  whore  such  opinion  prevailed,  a  feeling  of 
antagonism  to  the  whole  work.  Thus  at  our  late  General 
Synod,  the  liturgical  discussion  proved  to  be,  in  fact,  an  earnest 


52  THEOLOGICAL   VINDICATION 

theological  discussion,  the  interest  of  which  extended  far 
beyond  the  particular  denominational  occasion  that  gave  rise 
to  it.  It  was  remarkable,  indeed,  that  the  opponents  of  the 
new  Liturgy  seemed  to  lay  comparatively  little  stress  on  the 
mere  ritual  points,  to  which  at  other  times  they  have  taken 
exception.  The  question  of  responses,  for  example,  hardly 
came  into  the  argument  at  all.  Every  other  consideration  was 
for  the  time  swallowed  up  by  the  question  of  doctrine.  And 
here,  again,  the  special  Avas  evidently  ruled  by  the  general.  It 
was  not  so  much  dissatisfaction  with  single  doctrinal  state- 
ments here  and  there  in  the  Liturgy,  as  hostility  rather  to  its 
whole  doctrinal  basis,  that  roused  and  led  on  the  war  for  its 
destruction.  The  Liturgy  represented  one  system  of  religious 
thought ;  the  opposition  to  it  represented  another ;  the  two  con- 
stitutionally different,  and  mutually  repellent.  Hence  the  con- 
troversy. 

On  the  floor  of  the  Synod,  this  controversy  was  met  by  the 
friends  of  the  Liturgy  with  overwhelming  success.  The 
charges  brought  against  it  were  shown  to  be  untenable  and 
false.  Its  doctrinal  orthodoxy  was  triumphantly  sustained. 
In  the  nature  of  the  case,  at  the  same  time,  this  defence 
rebounded  into  the  form  of  an  attack  upon  the  orthodoxy  of 
the  opposite  side.  It  was  shown  that  the  offence  taken  with 
the  Liturgy  resulted  from  want  of  sympathy  with  the  true  idea 
of  the  Gospel,  as  this  is  owned  and  set  forth  in  the  forms  of 
the  Liturgy;  and  that  the  party  opposing  it  was  itself,  there- 
fore, theologically  unsound,  as  standing  in  the  bosom  of  a  sys- 
tem which,  as  far  as  it  prevails,  draws  after  it  the  rationalistic 
subversion  of  the  Christian  faith  altogether.  The  real  charac- 
ter of  the  system  in  this  view,  it  may  be  added,  cropped  out 
actually,  from  time  to  time,  in  the  speeches  which  were  made 
from  that  side  of  the  house;  in  a  way  that  served,  if  not  actu- 
ally to  horrify,  at  least  very  seriously  to  startle,  the  better 
sensibilities  of  many,  who  had  been  brought  up  to  believe  dif- 
ferent things. 

What  we  propose  now,  is  to  bring  this  momentous  issue 
between  the  Liturgy  and  its  enemies  into  wider  public  view. 


OP   THE   NEW   LITURGY.  5-3 

Vast  pains  have  been  taken  all  along  to  disseminate  doubts  of 
its  orthodoxy,  and  to  create  in  this  way  a  prejudice  against  it 
in  the  mind  of  the  Church.  Heretofore  the  way  has  not 
been  open  properly  for  meeting  the  loose,  and  always  more  or 
less  indefinite  charge.  Now,  however,  the  time  seems  to  have 
come  for  laying  aside  all  silence  and  reserve  in  regard  to  the 
subject.  The  theological  character  of  the  Liturgy  has  been 
challenged,  in  a  style  which  makes  it  proper  and  necessary  to 
confront  the  challenge.  Our  object  in  this  article  is  immedi- 
ately and  primarily  its  defence ;  but  all  such  defence,  as  we 
have  just  seen,  is  necessarily  at  the  same  time  a  polemical 
assault  on  the  system  of  theological  thinking,  from  which  the 
challenge  in  question  proceeds.  Such  is  the  nature  of  the 
issue  here  joined.  If  the  opponents  of  the  Liturgy  are  sound 
in  their  theological  premises,  the  Liturgy  of  course  must  be 
considered  theologically  unsound ;  but  if  it  should  appear,  that 
it  is  the  Liturgy  in  fact  which  rests  in  sound  premises,  then  we 
shall  know  with  equal  certainty,  that  the  charge  of  unsoundness 
falls  upon  the  other  side.  Our  vindication  in  one  direction, 
becomes  thus,  as  a  matter  of  course,  crimination  in  another 
direction.  We  turn  upon  the  theological  enemies  of  the 
Liturgy  their  own  charge.  In  the  prosecution  of  our  argu- 
ment, we  shall  cause  it  to  appear  that  they  are  themselves  une- 
vangelical,  just  where  they  call  in  question  the  evangelical 
character  of  the  Liturgy.  We  shall  be  under  the  painful 
necessity  of  showing,  that  by  their  own  concession,  or  in  the 
way  of  unavoidable  inference  from  their  premises,  they  stand 
committed  to  views  that  are  heretical  in  the  worst  sense  of  the 
term.  , 

Let  it  be  understood,  however,  that  this  accusation  is  not 
preferred  against  the  adversaries  of  the  Liturgy  indiscrimi- 
nately. We  have  limited  the  charge  purposely  to  its  theologi- 
cal enemies;  that  is,  to  those  who,  consciously  or  unconsciously, 
hate  and  oppose  the  system  of  theological  belief,  in  whose 
bosom  it  stands,  and  from  whose  inspiration  it  draws  its  life 
and  power.  We  would  fain  hope,  that  even  among  these  there 
may  be  some,  whose  minds  are  not  closed  absolutely  against 


54  THEOLOGICAL  VINDICATION 

the  truth,  and  who  need  only  the  help  of  some  candid  and  dis- 
passionate inquiry  to  be  made  sensible  of  the  danger  of  follow- 
ing blindly  the  prejudices  by  which  they  are  now  led.  Beyond 
the  range  of  all  such  theological  opposition,  however,  there  is 
a  large  amount  of  disaffection  felt  toward  the  Liturgy  at  pre- 
sent, which  rests  upon  other  grounds  altogether.  It  is  the 
result  of  misrepresentations  industriously  circulated,  of  fears 
blindly  awakened,  of  prejudices  adroitly  played  upon  by  party 
address — all  in  profound  ignorance,  for  the  most  part,  of  what 
the  Liturgy  actually  is,  and  of  what  it  proposes  to  do.  With 
better  information,  much  of  this  disaffection  may  be  expected 
to  disappear.  The  friends  of  the  Liturgy,  at  all  events,  are  very 
willing  to  have  it  put  as  widely  as  possible  to  this  test.  They 
only  ask  that  it  should  be  allowed  to  face  all  such  popular  pre- 
judice on  its  own  merits.  Let  the  people  have  an  opportunity 
to  judge  for  themselves,  whether  it  be  suitable  to  their  wants 
or  not.  We  do  not  shrink  from  this  tribunal,  even  in  our  pre- 
sent theological  argument.  On  the  contrary,  we  appeal  to  it 
without  fear.  It  was  said  on  the  floor  of  Synod,  indeed,  by 
one  who  opposed  the  Liturgy,  that  its  theology  was  of  too  deep 
a  character  to  be  intelligible  to  the  people.  As  if  the  people, 
forsooth,  could  not  find  themselves  properly  in  the  Creed,  the 
Te  Deum,  the  Lord's  Prayer,  the  Litany,  the  Ten  Command- 
ments, the  Church  Lessons  and  Collects,  but  only  in  the  crea- 
tions, extemporaneous  or  otherwise,  let  down  upon  them  in  the 
usual  style  from  the  modern  pulpit.  We  have  no  such  low 
opinion  of  the  capacity  of  our  laity.  In  the  case  before  us, 
many  of  them  at  least  have  theological  instincts,  which  are 
better  and  safer  than  all  scholastic  speculations ;  to  say  nothing 
of  traditional  beliefs,  which  no  logic  can  set  aside.  To  these 
instincts  and  beliefs  we  now  make  our  confident  appeal. 

As  already  said,  the  doctrinal  objections  made  to  the  Liturgy 
at  particular  points,  refer  themselves  throughout  to  its  general 
theology,  the  scheme  or  theory  of  Christianity,  taken  as  a 
whole,  in  which  its  different  parts  are  comprehended.  A  proper 
regard  to  order  requires  then,  that  we  should  direct  our  atten- 
tion first  to  this  general  scheme.     Only  after  the  theology  of 


OF   THE   NEW   LITURGY.  55 

the  Liturgy  in  such  broad  view  has  been  vindicated,  will  the 
way  be  open  for  considering  briefly  the  errors  charged  upon  it 
in  special  instances. 

What,  now,  is  the  reigning  theology  of  the  Liturgy?  It  is 
sometimes  spoken  of  in  this  country  as  the  Mercersburg  The- 
ology. But  the  system  is  far  wider  in  fact  than  any  such  name  ; 
and  no  name  of  this  sort  besides  can  give  us  any  true  insight  into 
its  interior  character  and  constitution.  What  we  need  here,  is  not 
a  distinctive  title  for  the  theology  in  question,  but  a  distinguish- 
ing apprehension  of  its  nature.  For  our  present  purpose  it  may 
answer  to  characterize  it  descriptively,  (without  pretending  to 
exhaust  the  subject),  under  a  threefold  view*  In  the  first 
place,  it  is  Christological,  or  more  properly  perhaps  Christo- 
centric;  in  the  second  place,  it  moves  in  the  bosom  of  the 
Apostles'  Creed;  in  the  third  place,  it  is  Objective  and  Histori- 
cal, involving  thus  the  idea  of  the  Church  as  a  perennial  article 
of  faith.  These  three  conceptions  are  closely  intertwined ;  but 
they  admit  and  deserve  separate  consideration. 

CHRISTOCENTRIC   THEOLOGY. 

The  term  is  sufficiently  clear.  It  explains  itself.  We  mean 
by  it,  of  course,  that  the  theology  before  us  centres  in  Christ. 
He  is  not  simply  the  author  of  its  contents:  these  contents 
gather  themselves  up  into  Him  ultimately  as  their  root.  As 
an  object  of  faith  and  knowledge,  and  in  the  only  form  in 
which  it  can  be  regarded  as  having  reality  in  the  world,  Chris- 
tianity has  been  brought  to  pass  through  the  mystery  of  the 
Incarnation,  and  stands  perpetually  in  the  presence  and  power 
of  that  fact.  All  its  verities,  all  its  doctries,  all  its  promises,  all 
its  life-giving  forces,  root  themselves  continually  in  the  undy- 
ing life  of  Him,  who  thus  became  man  for  us  men  and  for  our 
salvation.  And  such  being  the  actual  objective  constitution  of 
Christianity,  it  would  seem  to  be  at  once  plain  that  our  appre- 
hension of  it,  to  be  either  right  or  safe,  must  move  in  the  same 
order.  It  must  plant  itself  boldly  and  broadly  on  the  propo- 
sition, that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  principle  of  Christianity,  and 
that  the  full  sense  of  the  Gospel  is  to  be  reached  only  in  and 


56  THEOLOGICAL   VINDICATION 

through  the  revelation  which  is  comprehended  in  His  glorious 
Person.  In  doing  this  it  will  become  necessarily  such  a 
theology,  such  a  way  of  looking  at  the  Christian  salvation,  as 
we  are  now  trying  to  describe.  Learned  or  unlearned,  it  will 
be  a  theology  that  revolves  around  Christ  as  a  centre,  and  is 
irradiated  at  all  points  by  the  light  that  flows  upon  it  from  his 
presence. 

For  the  right  knowledge  of  things  everywhere,  all  depends 
on  their  being  surveyed  from  the  right  point  of  view.  Facts 
and  forms  are  not  enough ;  they  must  be  apprehended  in  their 
true  relations;  and  this  requires  that  the  beholder  should 
occupy,  in  regard  to  them,  such  a  centre  of  observation  as  may 
enable  him  to  see  them  in  this  way.  Even  an  outward  land- 
scape, to  be  seen  to  advantage,  must  be  seen  from  the  proper 
position.  So  as  regards  any  field  or  range  of  science.  The 
astronomy  of  the  old  world,  for  example,  abounded  in  obser- 
vation and  study;  was  furnished  with  vast  material  of  phe- 
nomena and  facts ;  accomplished  much  in  the  way  of  scientific 
comparison,  induction,  and  generalization.  But  it  labored 
throuo-hout  with  embarrassment  and  confusion,  because  its 
scheme  of  the  heavens  was  projected  from  a  wrong  standpoint. 
It  made  the  earth  to  be  the  centre  of  the  system  to  which  it 
belongs,  and  studied  the  motions  of  the  heavenly  bodies  exclu- 
sively from  this  false  assumption.  It  was  geocentric,  as  we 
say,  in  its  contemplations,  and  therefore  every  where  at  fault. 
The  Copernican  system,  in  the  fulness  of  time,  redeemed  the 
science,  and  made  room  for  its  modern  triumphs ;  not  primarily 
by  the  revelation  of  new  facts,  but  by  finding  the  true  centre 
of  observation  for  the  apprehension  of  old  facts.  It  planted 
its  scientific  lever  in  the  sun,  instead  of  the  earth,  bringing  its 
studies  thus  into  harmony  with  the  objective  order  of  the  world  it 
sought  to  understand  and  expound.  Astronomy,  in  other 
words,  ceased  to  be  geocentric,  and  became  heliocentric.  Hence 
all  its  later  enlargement  and  success. 

Now  what  this  heliocentric  (sun-centre)  standpoint  is  for  the 
right  study  of  the  heavens  in  the  science  of  astronomy,  we 
affirm  the    Christocentric  (Christ-centre)  standpoint  to  be,   for 


OF    THE    NEW    LITURGY. 


the  right  study  of  heavenly  and  eternal  things  in  the  science 
of  theology.     No  other  standpoint  can  be  substituted  for  it 
without  boundless  error  and  confusion.     It  is  possible  to  bring 
in  here  a  diJQferent  centre  of  observation ;  nay,  it  is  the  natural 
vice  of  our  fallen  reason,  that  it   tends   continually  to   throw 
itself  upon  a  different  centre;  for  the  full  practical  sense  of 
what  Christ  is  in  this  respect,  belongs   only  to  the  world  of 
faith,  which  as  such  is   at   the  same  time  the  world  of  Avhat 
transcends  all  natural  reason.     We  may  have  a  simply  anthro- 
pological divinity — a  mere  humanitarian  theology ;  all  centering 
in  the  idea  of  man  (anthropoccntric);  the  earth  again  ruling 
the  heavens,  and  the  merely  moral  or  ethical,  at  best,  playing 
itself  off  as  the  divine.     Or  we  may  have,  on  the  other  hand, 
a  simply  theological  divinity — a  construction  of  theology  start- 
ing from  the  idea  of  God,  considered  absolutely  and  outside  of 
Christ  (theocentric);    in  which  the    relations   of    God    to    the 
world,  then,  will  become  pantheistic,  fantastic,  visionary,  and 
unreal;  and  all  religion  will  be  made  to  resolve  itself  at  last 
into  metaphysical  speculations  or  theosophic  dreams.     How  far 
these  false  projections  of  Christian  doctrine,  in  one  view  antago- 
nistic, and  yet  in  another  everlastingly  intermarried,  have  made 
themselves  mischievously  felt  in  the  Christian  Avorld,  through  all 
Protean  forms  and  shapes,  from  their  first  bad  birth  as  Ebion- 
ism  and  Gnosticism,  down  to    the  Socinianism,  Anabaptism, 
and   metaphysical    Calvinism   of   the   sixteenth  century,    and 
down  still  farther  to  corresponding  forms  of  religious  thought 
in  our  own  time — this  is  not  the  proper  place  to  inquire.     Our 
object   is   simply  to  fix  attention   on   the  possibility  of  such 
wrong  constructions  of  Christianity,  for  the  purpose  of  insist- 
ing with  more  effect  on  the  necessity  of  a  construction  that 
shall  start  from  the  right  point  of  observation ;  and  to  make 
fully  apparent,  moreover,  how  much  is  comprehended  in  what 
we  say,  when  we  affirm  that  this  right  point  of  observation  is 
the  Person  of  our  Lord  Jesus   Christ,  and  that  no  theology, 
therefore,  can  be  either  safe  or  sound,  or  truly  Christian,  which 
does  not  show  itself  to  be  in  this  view  a  truly  Christocentric 
theology. 


58  THEOLOGICAL   VINDICATION 

The  proposition  needs  no  proof.     It  is  a  first  principle,  a 
self-evident  axiom,  in   Christianity.      To  doubt  it,  is   to  call 
Christ  Himself  into  donbt.    Has  He  not  said:   "I  am  the  Light 
of  the  world"?     Is  it  not  His  own  voice  that  still  rings  through 
the  ages  from  the  isle  of  Patmos:   "I  am  alpha  and  omega,  the 
first   and  the  last"?     The  natural  world  begins  and   ends  in 
Him;  for  "all  things  were  made  by  Him,  and  without  Him 
was  not  anything  made  that  was  made"  (John  i.  3);  and  again 
we   are  told,   "  by  Him   were  all   things  created    that  are  in 
heaven,  and  that  are  in  earth,  visible  and  invisible,  whether 
they  be  thrones,  or  dominions,  or  principalities,  or  powers;  all 
things  were  created  by  Him,  and  for  Him;  and  He  is  before 
all  things,  and  by  Him  all  things  consist"  (Col.  i.  16,  17).  The 
ethical  world,  the  movement  of  humanity,  the  world  of  history 
as  it  may  be  called,  begins  and  ends  in  Him ;  it  is  not  chaotic, 
the  sport  of  blind  chance  or  iron  fate ;   Christ  is  in  it,  causing 
all  its  powers  and  forces  to  converge  throughout  to  what  shall 
be  found  to  be  at  last  the  world's  last  sense  in  the  finished 
work  of  redemption.     Finally,  the  world  of  revelation  begins 
and  ends  in  Him;  it  is  not  a  number  of  independent  utter- 
ances, properly  speaking,  given  forth  from   God,  but  a  single 
economy  or   system,   through  which  Grod  has   made   Himself 
known  among  men,  with  progressive  manifestation,  in  the  way, 
not  of  doctrine  primarily  and   immediately,  but   of   act   and 
deed ;   the   entire  movement  having   its   principle  or   root  in 
Christ  from  the  first,  centering  at  last  in  the  historical  fact  of 
the  Incarnation,  and  running  its  course  thence  onward  to  the 
hour  of  His  second  appearing,  when  He  shall  come  to  be  glo- 
rified  in    His    saints,   and  admired  in  all  them  that    believe. 
Jesus    Christ   is    the    alpha   and   omega  of   all    these  worlds 
(nature,  history  and  grace),  and  as  such  the  principle,  centre 
and  end,  therefore,  in  which  they  all  meet,  and  gather  them- 
selves together  finally,  as  one  (Eph.  i.   10).     This  being  so, 
where  shall  we  find  the  key  to   a  correct  knowledge  of  the 
world,  or  of  man,  or  of  God,  if  not  in  that  which  is  set  before 
us  as  the  first  object  of  the  Christian  faith,  the  mysterious  con- 
stitution of  His  blessed  Person?     Above  all,  what  can  we  ex- 


OF   THE   NEW   LITURGY.  59 

pect  to  know  rightly  in  the  sphere  of  revelation  (among  the 
facts  of  the  Bible,  and  amid  the  "powers  of  the  world  to 
come"  that  are  lodged  in  the  Church),  without  the  help  of  this 
key?  The  Old  Testament  throughout  has  no  sure  sense  or 
force,  except  in  the  Christological  view  of  its  being  a  subordinate, 
relatively  imperfect  discipline  or  pedagogy,  whereby  the  way 
was  prepared  for  the  coming  of  Christ  in  the  flesh.  It  has  no 
power  to  explain  or  interpret  Christ,  save  only  so  far  as  it  is 
itself  made  intelligible  first  in  and  through  Christ.  Then,  as 
regards  Christianity  itself,  strictly  taken,  what  is  it,  we  may 
well  ask,  in  difference  from  all  else  pretending  to  call  itself 
religion,  if  it  be  not  the  product  and  outgrowth  of  the  new 
order  of  life,  which  first  became  actual  in  the  world  by  the 
assumption  of  our  human  nature  into  union  with  the  Divine 
Word  (John  i.  14,  17),  having  in  this  view  its  beginning,  mid- 
dle, and  end  in  Christ,  and  in  Christ  only? 

And  how  then,  having  such  objective  constitution,  and  standing 
thus  actually  and  entirely  in  the  historical  being  of  Christ,  beyond 
which  it  must  necessarily  resolve  itself  into  nothing,  as  having  no 
basis  of  faith  whereon  to  rest;  being  in  such  sort  bound  to  Christ, 
we  repeat,  as  the  alpha  and  omega,  sum  and  substance  of  its  whole 
existence,  how  possibly  shall  Christianity  be  studied  and  under- 
stood aright,  either  practically  or  doctrinally,  either  as  a  sys- 
tem of  life,  or  as  a  system  of  theology,  if  it  be  not  in  the 
Christocentric  way  of  which  we  are  now  speaking?  To  com- 
prehend the  "world  which  grace  has  made,"  we  must  take  our 
position  by  faith  in  the  great  primordial  centre,  from  which  all 
has  been  evolved,  and  there  fixing  our  spiritual  telescope^ 
endeavor,  as  best  we  may,  to  scan  the  wonders  thus  oifered  to 
our  contemplation;  being  well  assured  that  from  any  other 
centre,  they  will  either  not  be  seen  at  all,  or  else  will  be  seen 
only  under  more  or  less  distorted  forms,  and  in  more  or  less 
false  relations  and  proportions.  This  centrality  of  Christ,  in 
the  Christian  system,  reaches  forth  to  all  parts  of  the  system. 
Practically,  all  righteousness,  all  morality,  all  virtue,  in  the 
Christian  sense,  grow  forth  from  the  "law  of  the  spirit  of  life 
in  Christ  Jesus."     All  sound  Christian  feeling  and  experience, 


60  THEOLOGICAL   VINDICATION 

flow  from  the  sense  of  Christ  formed  in  us  as  the  hope  of 
glory.  And  so  intellectually  also,  Christ  is  our  wisdom,  the 
principle  of  all  true  Christian  illumination  and  knowledge. 
Through  Him  only  we  are  made  to  know  man,  his  original 
destination,  and  the  full  extent  of  his  fall.  Through  Him  only, 
we  come  to  have  an  insight  into  the  true  nature  of  sin,  the 
power  of  the  devil,  the  meaning  of  death,  the  idea  of  redemp- 
tion, and  the  progress  of  the  Christian  salvation  out  to  the 
resurrection  of  the  last  day.  Through  Him  only,  do  we  ever 
come  to  the  true  understanding  of  God,  "in  the  knowledge  of 
whom  standeth  our  eternal  life." 

The  theology  now  under  consideration  is  decidedly  of  this 
character.  It  revolves  around  Christ.  It  has  been  strangely 
enough  charged  at  times  with  subordinating  the  idea  of  Christ 
to  the  idea  of  the  Church.  But  this  is  a  gross  mistake,  if  not 
a  perverse  slander.  The  theology  in  question  does,  indeed,  lay 
stress  on  the  doctrine  of  the  Church,  as  stress  is  laid  on  it  also 
in  the  Apostles'  Creed;  but  only  as  the  Church  is  held  to  be 
the  necessary  consequence  of  Christ  (following  the  Creed  in 
this  also),  and  never  as  putting  the  Church  in  Christ's  place. 
No  theology  in  the  country  certainly  has  made  more  of  Christ 
as  the  centre  of  its  thinking  and  teaching.  No  theology  has 
insisted  more  earnestly  on  the  great  cardinal  truths  of  the 
Trinity,  the  Eternal  Generation,  the  Divinity  of  the  Son,  the 
Incarnation,  the  Mediatorial  Work  and  Reign  of  Christ;  and 
no  theology,  it  may  be  safely  asserted,  has  done  more,  within 
the  same  time,  to  awaken  and  enforce  attention  to  the  practical 
significance  of  these  truths  in  the  American  religious  world. 

This  brings  us  to  the  consideration  of  what  we  have  already 
named  as  its  second  distinguishing  characteristic,  namely;  the 
fact,  that  it  moves  throughout  in  the  bosom  of  the  old  Creeds, 
the  original  regula  fidei  of  the  Christian  world. 

RULED  BY  THE  APOSTLES'  CREED. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  waste  time  here  on  the  half-learned 
criticisms,  we  hear  made  continually,  in  certain  quarters,  on  the 
title  and  origin  of  this  svuibol.     We  know  that  it  was  not  com- 


OF   THE   NEW   LITURGY.  61 

posed  strictly  by  the  Apostles ;  that  it  took  form  gradually ; 
that  there  were  different  Greeds  in  the  first  centuries ;  and  that 
among  these,  the  formula  used  at  Rome  finally  gained  general 
credit  in  the  fifth  and  sixth  centuries,  so  as  to  become,  for  sub- 
sequent times,  what  is  now  denominated  the  Apostles'  Creed. 
All  this  we  know;  but  we  know  also,  at  the  same  time,  that 
this  final  settlement  upon  the  Roman  form,  involved  no  giving 
up  or  changing  any  where  of  a  single  point  of  faith ;  that  the 
different  Creeds  previously,  were  only  variations  of  one  and  the 
same  confessional  theme ;  that  what  was  added  to  its  utterance 
in  any  case,  came  in  only  as  the  explicit  enunciation  of  what 
was  included  in  it  implicitly  before ;  and  that  all  in  this  way 
resolved  itself  into  a  common  rule  of  faith,  or  canon  of  truth, 
which  the  universal  Church  held  from  the  beginning  as  of 
Apostolic  origin  and  Apostolic  authority.  In  this  character, 
the  symbol  has  been  received  through  all  ages,  by  all  branches 
of  the  Church,  both  Oriental  and  Occidental,  as  the  primary 
and  most  fundamental  expression  of  the  Christian  faith.  Pro- 
testantism has  claimed,  from  the  beginning,  to  stand  here  on 
the  same  ground  with  Roman  Catholicism.  The  Reformed 
Church,  no  less  than  the  Lutheran,  starts  confessionally  with 
the  Apostles'  Creed.  Our  own  admirable  Heidelberg  Catechism, 
in  particular,  makes  it,  in  form,  the  ground  and  rule  of  all  it 
professes  to  teach  in  the  way  of  faith. 

The  Apostles'  Creed  thus  is  the  deepest,  and  for  that  reason  most 
comprehensive  of  all  Christian  symbols.  It  lies  at  the  founda- 
tion of  all  evangelical  unity ;  it  is  the  last  basis  and  bond  of 
comprehension  in  the  conception  of  the  Church.  No  sect 
refusing  to  stand  on  this  basis,  can  have  any  right  to  claim 
footing  in  the  Gospel,  or  fellowship  with  the  Apostles. 

All  right  theological  thinking  then,  as  well  as  all  true  evan- 
gelical believing,  must  start  where  this  fundamental  form  of 
faith  starts,  and  keep  step  with  it  at  every  point  as  f\ir  as  it 
goes.  The  reason  of  this  is  plain.  It  lies  in  the  constitution 
of  the  Creed;  which  is  no  summary  of  Christian  doctrine  pri- 
marily for  the  understanding,  but  the  necessary  form  of  the 
Gospel,  as  this  is  first  apprehended  by  faith;  a  direct  transcript, 


62  THEOLOGICAL   VINDICATION 

we  may  say,  of  what  the  Gospel  is  to  the  contemplation  of 
the  believer,  turned  wholly  upon  the  Person  of  Christ.  Such 
faith  is  necessarily  ruled  by  its  object;  the  Creed,  in  other 
words,  must  be  Christological,  must  unfold  itself,  first  of  all, 
in  the  order  of  what  are  to  be  regarded  as  the  fundamental 
facts  of  Christianity,  growing  forth  from  the  mystery  of  the 
Incarnation.  In  such  view,  there  is  no  room  to  speak  of  two 
or  more  difiFerent  methods  of  faith  for  taking  in  the  sense  of 
the  Gospel.  As  there  is  but  one  method  of  the  objective  move- 
ment of  the  Gospel  in  Christ  Himself,  so  can  there  be  only  one 
method  for  the  apprehension  of  it  on  the  part  of  believers. 
That  method  we  have  in  the  Apostles'  Creed ;  and  any  attempt 
to  set  this  aside,  to  substitute  for  it  some  different  construction 
of  first  principles,  or  to  subordinate  its  proper  normative 
authority  and  signification  to  any  later  type  of  belief,  must  be 
looked  upon  at  once  as  a  serious  falling  away  from  the  Gospel, 
and  may  be  expected  to  result  at  last  in  the  confusion  and 
eclipse  of  faith  altogether. 

All  this  the  theology  before  us  owns  and  holds  steadily  in 
view.  Starting  in  Christ,  it  follows  the  order  in  which  the 
facts  of  religion  unfold  themselves  with  necessary  connection 
from  His  Person.  This  order  is  for  it  not  optional  simply,  but 
is  felt  to  be  inwardly  bound  to  its  own  principle.  It  is  the  im- 
manent logic  of  faith,  determined  by  Him  who  is  the  central 
object  of  faith.  It  makes  all  the  difference  in  the  world  in 
this  view,  whether  a  system  of  theological  thought  be  cast  in 
the  type  of  doctrine  that  is  set  forth  in  the  Creed,  or  con- 
structed in  some  other  way.  To  some  it  may  seem  compara- 
tively indifferent,  how  the  topics  of  religion  are  put  together,  if 
only  the  same  topics  nominally  are  made  use  of  in  the  work ; 
the  form  is  of  no  account,  they  fancy ;  all  depends  upon  the 
matter.  But  this  imagination  itself  shows  at  once  the  wrong 
position  of  those  who  hold  it,  and  is  really  nothing  less  than 
a  vast  theological  blunder.  The  form  here  is  in  fact  every- 
thing; the  matter  nothing,  we  may  say,  except  as  embraced  in 
this  form.  It  is  a  vain  pretence,  therefore,  to  say,  that  the 
authority  of  the  Creed  is  sufficiently  acknowledged,  by  allowing 


OF   THE   NEW    LITUIIGV.  63 

it  to  be  in  substance  a  true,  tliougli  defective,  representation 
of  the  Gospel,  and  then  going  on  to  work  up  the  material 
of  it  into  some  supposed  better  scheme  of  doctrine,  project- 
ed from  another  standpoint  altogether,  and  moving  through- 
out in  a  totally  different  line  of  thought.  No  confession,  no 
catechism,  no  preaching,  no  worship,  no  system  of  divinity, 
carried  forward  in  this  way,  can  ever  breathe  the  spirit  of  the 
Creed,  or  have  in  it  the  true  life  of  the  Creed;  however  much 
it  may  try  to  make  the  world  believe  that  it  is  at  the  bottom 
in  harmony  with  the  "undoubted  articles  of  our  Christian 
faith,"  as  we  have  them  set  forth  in  this  radical  symbol. 

Hence  it  is,  that  where  such  pretended  reconstructions  of  the 
material  of  faith  prevail,  the  honor  shown  to  the  Creed  is  in 
fact  nominal  only,  and  theoretic  at  best,  and  never  practically 
real.  We  all  know  how  completely  the  symbol  has  fallen  out 
of  use,  in  all  those  portions  of  the  Church,  in  which  sucli 
reconstructed  divinity  has  come  to  have  the  upper  hand.  Evi- 
dence enough,  what  a  difference  it  makes,  Avhether  our  religion 
grow  forth,  or  not,  from  this  "form  of  sound  words,"  delivered 
unto  us  from  the  Apostles.  The  difference  reaches  into  all 
spheres  of  practical  Christianity;  into  family  religious  train- 
ing; into  the  Sunday-school;  into  the  work  of  catechetical 
instruction;  into  the  character  of  preaching;  into  all  sanctua- 
ry services;  into  all  devotional  offices.  In  the  same  way  it 
reaches  to  every  point  of  doctrinal  Christianity.  There  is  not 
a  Christian  dogma,  that  is  not  affected  by  it  in  the  most  serious 
manner. 

The  theology  of  the  Creed  does  not  stop  short,  of  course, 
with  the  few,  primordial  articles  of  that  first,  immediate  pa- 
noramic vision  of  faith.  Within  the  range  of  this  regulative 
scheme,  it  finds  room  for  any  amount  of  scientific  study  and 
enlargement,  through  the  use  of  what  matter  is  offered  to  it  for 
this  end  in  God's  Revelation,  and  in  the  exercise  of  a  reason 
that  is  now  purified  for  its  office  by  the  inspiration  of  God's 
Holy  Spirit;  the  very  element,  as  it  were,  of  the  world  of  faith 
in  which  the  Gospel  is  here  felt  to  mo,ve.  But  througli  all  such 
enlargement,  the  organization  of  doctrine  remains  rooted  and 


64  THEOLOGICAL   VINDICATION 

grounded  in  the  objective  mystery  of  the  new  creation  in  Christ 
Jesus,  as  this  has  been  first  apprehended  in  the  form  of  the 
Creed ;  and  every  doctrine  is  an  outgrowth  from  this,  having 
thus  its  position,  complexion  and  quality  in  the  system,  both 
for  faith  and  for  knowledge,  as  it  could  not  possibly  have  them 
in  any  other  way.  Every  doctrine,  in  this  way,  becomes 
Christological,  and  serves  to  express  a  truth  which  is  true  only 
within  the  orbit  of  the  Creed,  and  not  at  all  on  the  outside  of  it. 

It  would  be  interesting  to  verify  this  in  particular  cases,  by 
showing  how  the  doctrine  of  the  atonement,  for  example,  the 
article  of  justification  by  faith,  the  idea  of  regeneration,  the 
conception  of  sacramental  grace,  are  found  to  be  always  some- 
thing materially  different  in  the  theology  of  the  Creed  from 
what  they  are  made  to  be  in  any  other  theology;  but  it  would 
carry  us  too  far  for  our  present  purpose,  to  pursue  the  subject 
in  this  way.  We  have  said  enough  to  show  of  what  immense 
account  the  characteristic  is,  by  which  the  theological  system 
we  are  now  defending  is  distinguished  a^  being  the  theology  of 
the  Creed ;  and  what  a  gulph  of  separation  this  necessarily 
involves,  between  it  and  all  antagonistic  theologies;  which, 
however  loud  mouthed  they  may  be  in  the  use  of  cant  evangeli- 
cal shibboleths,  stand  convicted,  nevertheless,  of  being  pro- 
foundly unevangelical,  just  because  they  show  themselves  want- 
ing in  every  sort  of  genuine  sympathy  and  loyalty  for  the 
Apostles'  Creed,  through  which  the  original  voice  of  the  Grospel 
has  come  sounding  down  upon  us  from  the  earliest  times. 

The  theology  we  are  defending  may  be  said  to  be  specially 
identified  with  the  honor  of  the  Apostles'  Creed,  in  the  religious 
history  of  this  country.  In  our  Reformed  Zion,  twenty-five 
years  ago,  the  Creed  had  become  almost  a  dead  letter.  It  still 
kept  its  place  in  the  Heidelberg  Catechism  ;  but  that  itself  was 
in  a  fair  way  to  have  its  life  smothered  out  of  it,  by  the  incubus 
which  had  come  to  settle  upon  it  in  the  form  of  Methodistic 
Puritanism;  and  for  the  fundamental  significance  of  the  gem  it 
here  held  enshrined  in  its  bosom,  there  appeared  to  be  but  small 
sense  anywhere.  The  C]»eed  was  not  heard  commonly  in  our 
pulpits,  and  had  fallen  into  neglect  largely  in   our   families. 


OF   THE   NEW   LITURGY.  65 

Now,  however,  all  is  changed.  The  voice  of  the  old  symbol  is 
once  more  restored.  Our  children  are  familiar  with  it.  Alonjj 
with  the  Lord's  Prayer,  it  has  forced  itself  into  general  liturgi- 
cal use  among  us,  even  where  the  new  Liturgy  is  still  feared 
for  the  theological  spirit  that  has  wrought  such  auspicious 
change. 

For  can  there  be  any  doubt  of  the  source  from  which  this 
great  change  has  sprung?  Do  we  not  owe  it  entirely  to  the 
Christological  tendency,  that  has  been  at  work  among  us  for 
the  last  twenty  years ;  which  was  so  much  assisted  in  its  own 
development  by  the  study  of  the  Creed;  and  which  at  the  same 
time  wrought  eflfectually  to  restore  this  to  popular  confidence  and 
use? 

And  no  one,  who  has  observed  attentively  the  course  of  things, 
can  doubt,  but  that  the  power  of  this  testimony  has  been  felt, 
also,  far  beyond  the  narrow  limits  of  our  Reformed  Church. 
There  is  a  deplorable  want  of  real  sympathy  still  with  this 
archetypal  form  of  sound  words,  on  all  sides;  but,  a  reactionary 
feeling  has  begun  to  set  in  evidently  in  its  favor.  It  would 
be  hard  probably  to  find  now,  even  in  Puritan  New  England 
itself,  any  respectable  so  called  Orthodox  voice,  prepared  to 
say,  as  the  pious  "  Puritan  Recorder"  could  venture  to  do  in  1849, 
that  the  Apostles'  Creed  has  become,  for  the  orthodoxy  of  New 
England,  a  "fossil  relic  of  by  gone  ages" — a  dead  formulary, 
which  "teaches  in  several  respects  anti-scriptural  doctrines,"  so 
that  it  must  be  pitiful,  therefore,  to  think  of  "infusing  life  into 
it,  and  setting  it  up  again  as  a  living  ruler  in  the  Church."  A 
change,  we  say,  has  begun  to  come  over  the  spirit  of  that 
dream;  and  our  theology  unquestionably  has  had  something  at 
least  to  do  with  bringing  it  about.  No  other  theology  in  the 
country,  certainly,  has  labored  more  to  re-animate  the  symbol 
with  its  pristine  life.  No  other  has  so  borne  it  on  high  as  the 
chosen  banner  of  its  faith.  And  we  will  add  also  in  good  trust, 
of  no  other  is  there  more  room  to  say.  In  hoc  signo  vinces. 


66  THEOLOGICAL    VINDICATION 

OBJECTIVE    AND    HISTORICAL. 

Starting  in  the  great  fact  of  the  Incarnation,  and  following 
its  movement,  our  theology  has  finally  the  third  general  charac- 
ter of  being  Objective  and  Historical.  In  other  words,  it  is  not 
a  system  simply  of  subjective  notions,  a  metaphysical  theory  of 
God  and  religion  born  only  of  the  human  mind,  a  supposed  ap- 
prehension of  supernatural  verities  brought  into  the  mind  in 
the  way  of  abstract  thought;  but  it  is  the  apprehension  of  the 
supernatural  by  faith  under  the  form  of  an  actual  Divine  mani- 
festation in  and  through  Christ,  which,  as  such,  rules  and 
governs  the  power  that  perceives  it,  while  it  is  felt  also  to  be 
joined  in  its  own  order  to  the  natural  history  of  the  world  on- 
ward through  all  time.  So  much  lies  at  once  in  the  Apostles' 
Creed. 

All  revelation  is  primarily  something  that  God  does — an  ob- 
jective, supernatural  manifestation,  which  causes  His  presence 
to  be  felt  in  the  world.  The  right  apprehension  of  what  is  thus 
exhibited,  which  can  be  only  through  the  inspiration  of  His 
Spirit,  becomes  then  the  power  of  His  word  in  the  souls  of 
those  to  whom  it  is  addressed.  Universally,  it  would  seem,  the 
inward  illumination  is  bound  to  the  outward  manifestation  in 
this  way.  God  does  not  speak  to  the  souls  of  men  immediately 
and  abruptly,  as  enthusiasts  and  fanatics  fondly  dream;  that 
would  be  magic,  and  gives  us  the  Pagan  idea  of  religion,  not 
the  Christian.  The  order  of  all  true  supernatural  teaching  is, 
the  objective  first,  and  the  subjective  or  experimental  after- 
wards, as  something  brought  to  pass  only  by  its  means.  Most 
of  all,  we  may  say,  is  this  true  of  Christianity,  the  absolute 
end  of  all  God's  acts  of  revelation.  Its  whole  significance  is 
comprehended,  first  of  ail,  in  the  Divine  deed,  whereby  God 
manifested  Himself  in  the  flesh,  through  the  mystery  of  the  In- 
carnation. This  objective  act  is  itself  the  Gospel,  in  the  pro- 
foundest  sense  of  the  term.  In  the  very  nature  of  the  case,  it 
must  underlie  and  condition  all  that  the  Gospel  can  ever  be- 
come for  men,  in  the  way  of  inward  experience.  True,  it  can- 
not save  men  without  their  being  brought  to  experience  its 
power;  on. which  account  it  is,  that  we  need  to  be  placed  in 


OF   THE   NEW   LITURGY.  67 

communication  with  it  through  faith  ;  but  the  power  that  saves 
is  not,  for  this  reason,  in  our  experience  or  faith ;  it  is  wholly 
in  the  object  with  which  our  faith  is  concerned.  The  subjec- 
tive here,  sundered  from  the  objective,  can  give  us  at  best  only 
a  spurious  evangelicalism,  which  will  always  be  found,  in  the 
end,  to  be  more  nearly  allied  to  the  flesh  than  to  God's  Spirit. 

Apprehended  under  such  objective  view,  the  revelation  which 
God  has  been  pleased  to  make  of  Himself  through  Jesus  Christ 
(not  in  the  way  of  oracle  but  of  act),  becomes  necessarily,  for  our 
faith,  at  the  same  time  historical.  Only  so  can  it  be  felt  to  be 
real,  and  not  simply  notional  and  visionary.  Its  objectivity  it- 
self implies,  that  it  has  entered  permanently  into  the  stream  of 
the  world's  life,  not  just  as  the  memory  of  a  past  wonder,  but 
as  the  continued  working  of  the  power  it  carried  with  it  in  the 
beginning.  The  Gospel  is  supernatural;  but  it  is  the  super- 
natural joined  in  a  new  order  of  existence  to  the  natural;  and 
this,  it  can  be  only  in  the  form  of  history.  In  any  other  form,  it 
becomes  shadowy  and  unreal.  Sense  for  the  objective  in  Chris- 
tiariity,  leads  thus  universally  to  sense  for  the  historical;  while 
those  who  make  all  of  subjectivity  are  sure  to  be  unhistorical. 

The  historical  character  of  the  Gospel,  objectively  considered, 
meets  us,  first  of  all,  in  the  Person  and  Work  of  Christ  Him- 
self, as  they  are  exhibited  to  us  in  the  Creed.  Its  articles  are 
not  so  many  theological  propositions  loosely  thrown  together, 
but  phases  that  mark  the  progress  of  what  may  be  considered 
the  dramatic  development  of  His  Mediatorial  Life,  out  to  its 
last  consequence  in  the  full  salvation  of  His  people.  This,  of 
itself,  however,  involves  then,  in  the  next  place,  as  we  may  at 
once  see,  the  historical  character  of  Christianity  also,  regarded 
as  the  carrying  out  of  this  mystery  of  godliness  among  men  to 
the  end  of  time.  Not  only  the  subjective  religious  experiences 
and  opinions  of  men  here  are  to  be  regarded  as  entering  into 
the  general  flow  of  history,  like  their  political  or  scientific 
judgments,  but  the  objective  reality,  from  which  Christianity 
springs,  the  new  order  of  existence  which  was  constituted  for 
the  world  by  the  great  fact  of  the  Incarnation,  must  be  allowed 
also  to  be  historical.     Only  in  such  view  can  we  possibly  retain 


68  THEOLOGICAL    VINDICATION 

our  hold  on  the  objectively  supernatural,  as  it  entered  into  the 
original  constitution  of  the  Gospel.  It  is  not  enough  for  this 
purpose,  to  have  memories  only  of  what  vras  once  such  a  real 
presence  in  the  world.  It  lies  in  the  very  conception  of  the 
Gospel,  in  this  objective  view,  that  its  supernatural  economy 
should  be  of  perennial  force,  that  its  resources  and  powers  of 
salvation  should  be  "once  for  all;"  not  in  the  sense  of  some- 
thing concluded  and  left  behind,  as  many  seem  to  imagine,  but 
in  the  sense  of  what,  having  once  entered  into  the  life  of  the 
world,  has  become  so  incorporated  with  it  as  to  be  part  of  its 
historical  being  to  the  end  of  time. 

But  this  conception  of  a  supernatural  economy  having  place 
among  men  under  an  objective,  historical  form,  an  order  of 
grace  flowing  from  Christ,  and  altogether  different  from  the 
order  of  nature,  is  nothing  more  nor  less  than  the  idea  of  the 
Holy  Catholic  Church  as  we  have  it  in  the  Creed.  We  can  see 
thus  how  it  is,  that  this  article  holds  the  place  assigned  to  it  in 
that  symbol.  It  is  not  there  by  accident  or  caprice.  It  is 
there  as  part  of  the  faith,  which  is  required  to  take  in  the  ob- 
jective, historical  movement  of  the  grace  that  is  comprehended 
in  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ ;  and  it  meets  us  exactly  at  the  right 
point,  as  setting  forth  the  form  and  manner  in  which  Christ,  by 
the  Holy  Ghost,  carries  forward  His  work  of  salvation  in  the 
world.  If  we  are  to  hold  fast  the  objective,  historical  character 
of  what  this  work  was  first,  and  still  continues  to  be,  in  His 
own  Person,  it  cannot  be  allowed  to  lose  itself  in  the  agency  of 
the  Spirit  under  a  general  view;  it  must,  necessarily,  involve 
for  us  the  conception  of  a  special  sphere;  this  likewise  objective 
and  historical;  within  which  only  (and  not  in  the  world  at 
large),  the  Holy  Ghost  of  the  Gospel  is  to  be  regarded  as  work- 
ing. This  is  the  Church.  It  comes  in  just  here  as  a  necessary 
postulate  of  the  Christian  faith.  Standing  in  the  bosom  of  the 
Creed,  we  cannot  get  round  it.  It  is  a  mystery,  like  all  the 
other  articles  of  the  symbol,  which  we  are  required  to  believe, 
because  it  flows  with  necessary  derivation  from  the  coming  of 
Christ  in  the  flesh.  Our  belief  in  it  is  not  founded  in  our  em- 
pirical knowledge  of  it,  our  having  come  to  be  sure  of  its  ex- 


OF   THE   NEW    LITURGY.  69 

istence  and  attributes  in  some  other  way.  In  that  case  it  would 
not  be  faith  at  all  in  the  sense  of  the  Creed.  What  faith  has  to 
do  with  properly,  here  as  elsewhere,  is  the  supernatural  belonging 
to  its  object;  and  that  comes  to  us,  not  in  the  way  of  natural 
experience  and  observation,  but  only  in  the  way  of  a  priori 
challenge  and  demand  addressed  to  us  directly  from  its  own 
sphere.  We  do  not  believe,  as  the  old  adage  has  it,  because 
we  understand,  but  we  believe  in  order  that  we  may  understand. 
Where  there  is  no  faith  of  this  sort  in  the  Church,  eroinjj  before 
all  inquiries  in  regard  to  what  it  is  and  where  it  is  for  outward 
view,  it  is  not  to  be  expected  that  these  inquiries  can  be  carried 
forward  with  much  earnestness  or  effect.  We  may  not  be  able 
to  explain  fully  the  meaning  of  our  Saviour's  descent  to  hades, 
or  the  time  and  manner  of  His  second  advent;  but  that  is  no 
reason  why  these  articles  should  not  be  firm  objects  of  our 
faith;  we  believe  them,  because  they  are  felt  to  be  involved  in 
the  objective  movement  of  the  Gospel  itself  in  Christ's  Person. 
And  just  so  we  believe  the  Church.  We  cannot  get  along 
without  it,  in  our  conception  of  the  real,  objective,  historical 
working  of  Christ's  Mediatorial  Life  in  the  world.  This  must, 
to  be  real  at  all,  have  a  sphere  of  its  own ;  which,  as  such,  be- 
comes, then,  an  order  or  constitution  of  grace,  in  distinction 
from  the  world  in  its  simply  natural  constitution ;  exactly  what 
we  mean  by  the  Church  as  an  article  of  faith,  back  of  all  ques- 
tions in  regard  to  its  outward  ora;anization  and  form.  We 
cannot  get  along  without  it,  we  say,  in  the  objective  movement 
of  the  Creed.  Do  away  with  it,  as  modern  spiritualists  require, 
and  this  movement  is,  for  our  faith,  brought  suddenly  to  an 
end.  It  is  either  sublimated  into  magic,  or  precipitated  at 
once  into  the  order  of  mere  nature. 

The  theology  we  are  speaking  of,  then,  is  churchly.  It  be- 
lieves in  the  Church,  as  we  have  the  article  in  the  Apostles' 
Creed ;  believes  in  it  as  a  mystery,  which  comes  in  necessarily 
just  where  it  stands  in  the  Creed,  as  part  of  the  ongoing  move- 
ment of  the  general  mystery  of  salvation,  that  starts  in  the  In- 
carnation. It  believes  in  an  economy  of  grace,  a  sphere  of  su- 
pernatural powers  and  forces  flowing  from  the  historical  fact  of 


70  THEOLOGICAL   VINDICATION 

Christ's  birth,  death,  and  glorification,  Avhich  are  themselves 
present  in  the  world  historically  (not  magically),  in  broad  dis- 
tinction from  the  economy  of  nature ;  and  in  the  bosom  of 
which  only,  not  on  the  outside  of  it,  the  Gospel  can  be  expected 
to  work  as  the  wisdom  of  God  and  the  power  of  God  unto  sal- 
vation. So  far  as  this  goes,  of  course,  it  owns  and  confesses 
that  the  Church  is  a  medium  of  communication  between  Christ 
and  His  people.  They  must  be  in  the  order  of  His  grace,  in 
the  sphere  where  this  objective  working  of  His  grace  is  actually 
going  forward,  and  not  in  the  order  of  nature,  where  it  is  not 
going  forward  at  all  (but  where  Satan  reigns  and  has  his  own 
way),  if  the  work  of  redemption  and  sanctification  is  to  be  car- 
ried forward  in  them  with  full  effect.  In  this  sense,  most  as- 
suredly, salvation  is  of  the  Church,  and  not  of  the  world ;  and 
to  look  for  it  in  the  world,  by  private  spiritualistic  negotiations 
with  God,  professedly  and  purposely  pouring  contempt  on  the  idea 
of  all  church  intervention,  is  to  look  for  it  where  it  is  not  to  be 
found. 

This,  of  course,  means  a  great  deal ;  and  draws  after  it,  in 
the  way  of  necessary  consequence,  much  that  we  cannot  now 
think  of  noticing  in  detail.  A  churchly  theology  can  never 
run  in  the  same  direction  with  a  theology  that  is  unchurchly; 
and  can  never  breathe  the  same  spirit.  Not  because  it  makes 
less  of  Christ,  as  this  last  is  ever  ready  to  charge ;  but  because 
it  makes  more  of  Christ,  and  cannot  consent  to  have  Him  turned 
into  a  Gnostic  phantom.  Not  because  it  is  less  evangelical,  as  the 
unchurchly  spirit,  with  great  self-complacency,  is  forever  prompt 
to  assume ;  but  because  it  rests  in  a  more  profound  and  com- 
prehensive apprehension  of  the  Gospel. 

Such  a  churchly  theology,  we  feel  at  once,  can  never  be 
otherwise  than  sacramental.  Where  the  idea  of  the  Church 
has  come  to  make  itself  felt  in  the  way  now  described,  as  in- 
volving the  conjunction  of  the  supernatural  and  the  natural 
continuously  in  one  and  the  same  abiding  economy  of  grace, 
its  sacraments  cannot  possibly  be  regarded  as  outward  signs 
only  of  what  they  represent.  They  become,  for  faith,  seals 
also  of  the  actual  realities  themselves,  which  they  exhibit ;  mys- 
teries, in  which  the  visible  and  the  invisible  are  bound  together 


OF   THE   NEW   LITURGY.  71 

by  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost  (not  physically  or  locally,  as 
vain  talkers  will  forever  have  it),  in  such  sort,  that  the  presence 
of  the  one  is,  in  truth,  the  presence  of  the  other. 

In  the  end,  also,  unquestionably,  the  sacramental  feeling 
here  cannot  fail  to  show  itself  a  liturgical  feeling.  There  is  an 
inward  connection  between  all  the  forms  of  religious  thinking 
we  have  had  thus  far  under  consideration.  They  run  into  one 
another,  and  require  one  another  to  be  in  any  sense,  complete. 
A  theology  which  is  truly  Christocentric,  must  follow  the 
Creed,  must  be  objective,  must  be  historical ;  with  this,  must 
be  churchly;  and  with  this  again,  must  be  sacramental  and 
liturgical.  It  must  be  liturgical,  moreover,  in  a  sense  agreeing 
with  these  affinities  throughout — the  only  sense,  in  fact,  in 
-which  it  is  not  absurd  to  talk  of  worship  in  this  form.  It  can 
never  be  satisfied  with  anything  less  than  an  altar  liturgy.  A 
mere  pulpit  liturgy,  a  hand-book  of  forms  for  the  exclusive  use 
of  the  minister,  must  ever  seem  to  it,  in  comparison,  something 
very  unrefreshing,  not  to  say  miserably  cold  and  dry. 

The  enemies  of  the  new  Liturgy  are  right,  then,  in  saying, 
that  it  is  the  product  of  the  general  scheme  of  theology  we  have 
now  tried  to  characterize  and  describe,  and  that  the  spirit  of 
this  theology  pervades,  more  or  less,  all  its  offices  and  forms. 
For  this  reason  it  is,  in  truth,  that  they  dislike  it,  and  would 
be  glad  to  get  it  out  of  the  way.  Standing,  as  they  do,  in 
another  order  of  religious  thought  altogether,  they  feel  tliat  the 
Liturgy  is  against  them,  and  their  instinct  of  self-preservation, 
as  it  were,  impels  them  to  seek  its  destruction.  In  this  way, 
our  liturgical  controversy  is,  in  reality,  a  great  theological  con- 
troversy; one  that  should  be  of  interest  to  other  Protestant 
Churches,  no  less  than  to  our  own.  We  see  in  it  two  general 
schemes  of  theology;  two  different  versions,  we  may  say,  of  the 
meaning  of  Christianity;  two  Gospels,  in  fact,  arrayed  against 
one  another,  with  the  feeling  on  both  sides,  that  if  one  be  true 
the  other  must  necessarily  be  wrong  and  false.  One  of  tliese 
schemes  is  the  theology  we  have  been  thus  far  trying  to  de- 
scribe; the  other  is  the  opposite    of  this,  the    Puritanic  un- 


72  THEOLOGICAL   VINDICATION 

cliurchly  scheme,  we  may  call  it,  in  which  the  enemies  of  the 
Liturgy  now  openly  stand. 

ANTI-LITURGICAL   THEOLOGY. 

And  what,  now,  is  this  Puritanic  scheme  ?  It  admits  within 
it  different  constructions,  Calvinistic,  Arminian,  Methodist, 
Baptistic,  and  so  on  in  all  manner  of  sect  forms ;  but  what  we 
are  concerned  with  here  is  only  its  general  character,  the  under- 
lying common  basis  of  these  distinctions,  as  this  presents  itself 
to  our  view  in  broad  contrast  with  the  general  character  of  the 
scheme  we  have  just  been  considering.  And  even  this  general 
view  must  be  taken  at  present  in  a  very  cursory,  wholesale  way. 
It  will  be  sufficient,  however,  we  trust,  to  show  all  unprejudiced 
persons,  whose  image  and  superscription  the  system  in  question 
bears,  and  in  the  service  of  what  cause  it  works. 

What,  we  ask  again,  is  this  Puritanic  scheme,  which  finds  a 
"serpent"  in  the  new  Liturgy,  and  sees  in  it  only  a  poisoned 
chalice  offered  to  the  lips  of  the  people  ?     We  will  now  answer. 

It  is  a  scheme,  which  betrays  itself  at  once  by  its  apostacy 
from  the  primitive  regula  fidei  of  the  Christian  Church,  the 
Apostles'  Creed.  We  know  how  it  is  ready  at  times,  especially 
in  our  German  Churches,  to  squirm  under  this  charge,  and  how, 
like  some  slimy  eel,  it  tries  to  slip  from  beneath  it  with  every 
sort  of  disingenuous  evasion.  But  we  mean  now  to  hold  it 
tightly  to  the  accusation;  and  to  do  this  before  the  people  (the 
elders  especially  and  laity  in  general  of  the  Reformed  Church), 
so  that  all  may  be  able  to  see  and  know  just  what  this  false 
popular  evangelicalism  means,  and  in  what  direction  it  leads. 
It  is  constitutionally  and  inwardly  at  war  with  the  Creed.  It 
cannot  frame  its  mouth  to  pronounce  the  symbol  in  its  true 
original  sense ;  but  claims  the  right  of  putting  into  its  articles, 
where  it  may  please,  a  better  modern  sense  of  its  own. 

Hear,  on  this  point,  the  "Puritan  Recorder,"  in  1849.  The 
Puritans,  it  says,  receive  the  Creed  "in  a  sense  consonant  with 
their  theology,"  either  leaving  out  altogether,  for  example,  the 
article  of  the  descent  to  hades,  or  putting  upon  it  a  constrained 
meaning  to  suit  themselves.     "But  it  is  neither  safe  nor  expe- 


OF   THE   NEW    LITURGY.  73 

dient,"  the  Recorder  honestly  adds,  "to  receive  such  a  docu- 
ment in  such  a  perverted  sense;  for  the  document  once  being 
admitted,  and  its  authority  being  made  to  bind  the  conscience, 
then  the  way  is  open  for  those  who  hold  the  errors  held  by  its 
authors,  to  plead  that  we  are  bound  to  receive  it  in  the  sense 
which  its  authors  gave  to  it,  and  this  makes  it  an  instrument  of 
corrupting  the  faith  of  the  Gospel."  Honest  confession  !  True 
divination !  The  voice  of  the  Creed  allowed  to  proclaim  itself 
from  week  to  week,  without  note  or  comment,  in  the  churches 
of  New  England,  would,  in  the  course  of  a  few  years,  we  verily 
believe,  sap  the  foundations  of  their  existing  orthodoxy,  and 
turn  the  stream  of  their  church  life  into  a  wholly  new  channel. 
But  any  such  use  of  the  Creed  among  them  now  would  be  cried 
down  as  a  Romanizing  tendency  or  a  hankering  after  ritualism; 
as  it  would  be  also  still,  in  spite  of  the  little  reactionary  move- 
ment we  see  working  here  and  there  the  other  way,  in  all 
branches  of  American  Presbyterianism.  In  these  ecclesiastical 
regions,  Puritanism  has  killed  the  Apostles'  Creed  out  of  all 
practical  and  theological  use.  It  has  become  for  them  a  dead 
letter,  in  family  and  school,  in  the  pulpit  and  in  the  divinity 
hall.  Let  the  thoughtful,  everywhere,  consider  well  what  this 
means.     We  speak  plainly,  because  the  fact  is  plain. 

In  our  Reformed  Church,  especially  since  the  theological  re- 
vival we  have  had  among  us  these  last  years,  no  tongue  would 
dare  to  wag  itself  against  the  Creed  in  the  fashion  of  the  "Puri- 
tan Recorder."  With  us  now  at  least,  the  symbol  is  no  dead 
letter,  but  a  living  witness  of  Apostolical  truth.  So  our  people 
are  coming  to  regard  it  more  and  more.  But  the  Puritanic 
spirit  is  still  among  us  to  a  certain  extent;  and  as  far  as  it  is 
so,  it  remains  true  still,  in  Jesuitical  disguise,  to  the  outspoken 
confession  of  the  Recorder,  that  the  Creed  can  be  mouthed  by 
modern  evangelicalism  only  in  a  galvanized,  so-called  non- 
natural  sense. 

Were  we  not  told  as  much  as  this,  to  all  intents  and  pur- 
poses, on  the  floor  of  the  late  General  Synod,  at  Dayton?  Was 
not  the  ground  there  taken  by  the  enemies  of  the  Liturgy,  that 
we  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  faith  of  the  third  and  fourth 


T4  THEOLOGICAL   VINDICATION 

centuries,  tlie  birth-period  of  the  Creed  in  its  full  development, 
as  we  now  have  it ;  that  the  faith  of  that  time  is  not  to  be  con- 
sidered normative  or  regulative,  in  any  sense,  for  the  faith  of 
the  modern  Christian  world ;  that  the  only  primitive  faith  we 
are  to  follow,  is  what  we  can  get  out  of  the  Bible  directly  for 
ourselves  (every  man  thus  following  his  own  nose),  without  re- 
gard at  all  to  any  such  objective  form  of  sound  words  as  we 
find  employed  to  set  forth  the  fundamental  belief  of  Christen- 
dom in  the  first  ages  ?  This,  of  course,  was  a  blow  struck  at 
all  confessionalism ;  bringing  down  our  Reformed  platform,  at 
one  stroke,  to  a  flat  level  with  the  lowest  forms  of  sectarian 
subjectivity,  and  involving  us  with  general  confusion  in  the 
brotherhood  of  Anabaptists,  Socinians,  Quakers,  Muggleto- 
nians,  United  Brethren,  Winebrennerians,  Mormons  (for  these, 
too,  prate  of  the  Bible  in  the  same  Cambyses  vein),  and  others, 
out  to  the  end  of  the  chapter.  Hence,  we  had,  in  part,  a 
change  of  base;  the  authority  of  the  Creed  insidiously  assailed 
from  the  authority  of  the  Heidelberg  Catechism;  the  faith  of 
the  Primitive  Church  required  to  shape  itself  here  into  con- 
formity with  what  was  represented  to  be  the  faith  of  the  six- 
teenth century.  A  modern  confessionalism  in  this  way  made 
to  rule  out  the  sense  of  the  older  confessionalism,  in  which, 
nevertheless,  it  professed  to  have  its  own  root  and  ground! 
Did  we  not  hear  this  nonsense  gravely  held  forth  at  Synod? 
Were  we  not  told  there,  that  we  are  to  take  the  Creed  only  in 
the  sense  of  the  fathers  of  the  sixteenth  century,  and  not  in  the 
sense  of  the  fathers  who  first  used  it  in  the  second  and  third 
centuries,  if  this  last  sense  should  be  found  not  to  square  ex- 
actly with  the  sixteenth-century  sense,  as  it  was  quietly  granted 
might' be  the  case?  On  the  supposition,  in  other  words,  of 
even  a  casual  discrepancy  anywhere  between  the  Creed  and  the 
Heidelberg  Catechism,  it  was  held  that  the  sense  of  the  Cate- 
chism must  rule,  that  is,  literally  coerce,  the  sense  of  the 
Creed ;  in  such  way,  that  .the  modern  symbol  shall  be  held  to 
be  of  primary  normative  force,  and  the  primitive  oecumenical 
symbol  of  only  secondary  derivative  force  as  taken  up  into  its 
bosom.     How  superlatively  absurd !     What  plainer  proof  could 


OF   THE   NEW   LITURGY.  75 

we  have  of  hostility  to  the  Creed,  than  the  cloven  foot  thus  un- 
ceremoniously thrust  upon  our  view?  Cannot  the  people  see 
it  everywhere  with  their  own  eyes?  The  matter  may  he  put 
into  a  nutshell.  Either  the  Creed,  in  its  original  unsophisti- 
cated sense,  is  what  the  Universal  Church  in  past  ages  held  it 
to  be,  the  one  only  true  radix  and  ground  type  of  Christian 
faith  and  doctrine;  or  else  it  is  not  tliis,  but  a  bastard  cor- 
ruption of  the  Gospel,  requiring  to  be  tinkered  into  new  sense 
at  learst,  if  not  new  form,  before  it  can  pass  muster  as  fairly 
evangelical,  in  the  modern  party  sense  of  this  much-abused 
term.  These  are  the  two  alternatives,  without  the  possibility 
of  any  middle  ground  for  even  a  rope-dancer  to  stand  upon. 
Where  they  stand,  whose  acrobatic  performances  with  the  sub- 
ject at  Synod  have  just  been  noticed,  needs  no  demonstration. 
They  do  not  own  the  Creed,  in  its  own  proper  historical  sense, 
for  the  original,  necessary,  and  radically  sure  norm  of  our  Re- 
formed faith;  but  take  it  only,  in  the  way  the  "  Puritan  Re- 
corder" took  it  in  1849,  as  being,  "  most  of  it,  capable  of  a  sense 
Avhich  harmonizes  with  the  Scriptures,"  going  on  then  to  rectify  it 
to  their  taste,  by  distilling  into  it  their  own  fancies,  or  what  they 
are  pleased  to  consider  the  elixir  of  sound  thinking  drawn  from 
some  other  quarter.  That  is,  in  plain  English,  the  Creed  is 
not  for  them  the  ultimate  symbolical  authority  of  the  Reformed 
Church ;  and  the  fathers  of  the  sixteenth  century  must  be  re- 
garded as  saying  what  was  not  true,  when  they  pretended  to 
look  upon  it  in  that  light.  These  modern  sons  of  theirs  know 
better  now,  and  have  changed  all  that. 

But  what  now  have  our  people,  as  a  body,  to  say  to  the  issue, 
thus  fairly  made  up  and  brought  before  them?  Will  they  allow 
their  first  symbol,  the  marroAV  and  kernel  of  their  confessional 
faith,  to  be  ruthlessly  torn  from  their  grasp  by  this  Puritanic 
enemy,  which  has  stolen  in  upon  us  Avhile  men  slept,  and  now 
threatens  to  rob  us  of  all  that  is  fairest  in  our  theology  or 
church  life?  Are  we  to  hold  on  to  the  Apostles'  Creed  with 
good  faith,  taking  it  in  its  own  true  sense;  or  shall  we  have  in 
place  of  it  only  a  dead  corpse  of  the  Creed,  eviscerated  of  its 
own  true  sense,  and  hypocritically  hold  this  up  as  an  argument 


76  THEOLOGICAL   VINDICATION 

^ of  our  fealty  to  the  ancient  symbol?  Are  these  old  primeval 
articles,  this  grand  architectonic  scheme  of  the  everlasting  Gos- 
pel, to  be  for  us  no  longer  of  undoubted  catholic  or  universal 
authority,  as  the  whole  is  declared  to  be  in  the  Heidelberg 
Catechism  ?  Will  the  Reformed  Church  recognize  the  voice  of 
her  true  teachers,  in  those  who  counsel,  directly  or  indirectly, 
any  such  falling  away  from  the  faith  of  the  fathers  ?  The  ap- 
peal is  to  the  people.     Let  the  people  answer. 

But  we  are  not  done  yet  with  this  anti-liturgical  theology. 
Its  opposition  to  the  Creed  shows,  of  course,  a  constitutional  dif- 
ference between  it  and  the  whole  conception  of  the  Gospel  con- 
tained in  this  ancient  symbol;  and  from  what  we  have  seen 
already  of  this,  we  need  have  no  difficulty  in  apprehending 
wherein  the  difference  consists,  and  to  what  it  amounts.  The 
difference  lies  just  here,  and  we  wish  all  to  ponder  and  consider 
it  well :  The  Gospel  of  the  Creed  is,  throughout,  Christologi- 
cal,  concentrates  itself  in  Christ,  throws  itself,  in  full,  upon  the 
Incarnation,  and  sees  in  the  objective  movement  of  this  Mys- 
tery of  Godliness,  as  St.  Paul  calls  it,  the  whole  process  of 
grace  and  salvation  on  to  the  resurrection  of  the  dead  and  the 
life  everlasting ;  while  this  other  scheme,  which  we  now  call, 
for  distinction's  sake,  the  Gospel  of  Puritanism,  substitutes  for 
all  this  a  construction  of  Christianity  that  is  purely  subjective, 
centering  in  the  human  mind,  and  that  gives  us  then  notions 
for  facts,  causing  metaphysical  abstractions  to  stand  for  the 
proper  objects  of  faith,  and  thus  resolves  all  religion  finally  into 
sheer  spiritualism ;  in  which  no  account  is  made  of  any  objective 
mediation  of  grace  outside  of  men,  but  every  man  is  supposed 
to  come  directly,  face  to  face,  with  God,  having,  in  his  evan- 
gelical notions  simply,  whatever  is  necessary  to  give  him  free 
access  to  the  Divine  presence. 

The  charge  of  not  preaching  Christ,  we  know,  is  one  which 
this  theology  will  be  ready  to  resent  on  all  sides,  as  the  last 
that  should  be  seriously  preferred  against  it.  It  is  accustomed 
to  please  itself  with  the  imagination  of  being  evangelical,  for 
the  very  reason  that  it  pretends  to  make  everything  of  Christ 
and  Him  crucified,  and  in  certain  of  its  phases  at  least  is  for- 


OF   THE   NEW    LITURGY.  77 

ever  ringing  changes  on  the  themes  of  righteousness  and  free 
redemption  through  His  name.  Is  not  this  the  very  boast  of 
our  unchurchly  sects,  all  the  land  over,  that  they  preach  Christ, 
and  Christianity,  in  opposition  to  such  as  lay  stress  on  the  idea 
of  the  Church,  on  the  sacraments,  on  outward  forms  in  any 
view;  denouncing  every  intervention  of  this  sort,  as  exter- 
nalism,  ecclesiasticism,  sacerdotalism,  ritualism,  or  something 
equally  bad,  that  serves  only  to  obscure  the  Saviour's  glory, 
and  to  block  up  the  way  to  His  presence  ?  Who  in  the  world 
do  preach  Chris^,  it  may  be  asked,  if  it  be  not  these  sects,  for 
whom  Christ  is  thus,  nominally,  all  in  all  ? 

This  we  understand.  It  is  an  old  song ;  as  old  as  the  Gnos- 
tics and  the  Phrygian  Montanists,  in  the  days  of  Tertullian. 
But  we  are  not  to  be  deceived  by  it  for  a  moment.  Try  the 
spirits,  says  St.  John ;  do  not  take  them  at  their  own  word ; 
try  them  whether  they  be  of  God.  And  he  gives  us  a  simple  cri- 
terion for  the  purpose,  applicable  to  all  times  (1  John  iv :  1-3). 
They  come  preaching  Christ  of  course.  How  else  could  they 
claim  to  be  Christian  ?  But  what  sort  of  a  Christ  is  it  that  they 
preach?  Is  it  the  historical  Christ  of  the  Incarnation.  Do 
they  confess  that  "Jesus  Christ  is  come  in  the  flesh,"  not  in 
appearance  only,  and  not  for  a  season  only,  but  in  full  reality 
and  for  all  time  ?  Or  is  their  confession  of  that  spiritualistic 
sort,  that  resolves  His  coming  in  the  flesh  into  a  mere  specula- 
tive dream,  long  since  subUmated  in  the  clouds  ?  In  this  last 
case,  St.  John  tells  us,  its  boasting  of  Christ  cannot  save  it.  It 
is  not  of  God,  but  is  the  very  spirit  of  Anti-Christ,  just  because 
it  sets  up  a  Christ  which  is  tbe  creature  of  its  own  subjective 
thinking,  over  against  and  in  place  of  the  only  true  objective 
and  historical  Christ  of  the  Gospel,  "who  is  over  all,  God 
blessed  forever.     Amen." 

We  are  not  to  be  put  oif  here  Avith  words.  Neither  can  we 
mince  matters  in  so  momentous  a  case.  We  reiterate  our 
charge.  The  theology  we  are  dragging  into  the  light  docs  not 
preach  Christ,  as  the  alpha  and  omega  of  the  new  creation,  the 
beginning,  middle,  and  end  of  the  Gospel.  It  cannot  stand  the 
searching  test  of  St.   John.     The  Christ  it  talks  about  is  not 


io  THEOLOaiCAL  VINDICATION 

the  Christ  of  the  Incarnation,  as  He  is  made  to  pass  before  us 
in  the  sublime  vision  of  the  old  Apostles'  Creed ;  as  we  hear 
Him  proclaimed  (Jesus  and  the  Resurrection  and  the  Second 
Advent),  by  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul,  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apos- 
tles ;  as  we  seem  to  see  Him  in  the  midst  of  the  golden  candle- 
sticks, looking  forth  upon  us  serenely  and  grandly  from  the  ec- 
clesiastical literature  of  the  first  Christian  ages.  Not  this, 
verily;  as  too  many  of  us,  alas,  have  been  made  painfully  to 
feel;  but  another  form  and  visage  altogether;  an  object  of 
thought  rather  than  of  faith,  in  looking  to  which  we  find  that 
we  have  at  last  little  more  than  our  own  thought  to  work  with ; 
and  become  like  those  that  feed  on  wind,  in  trying  to  replenish 
our  souls  with  spirituahties  which  our  souls  have  themselves 
produced,  instead  of  the  true  bread  which  cometh  down  from 
heaven  and  alone  giveth  life  unto  the  world. 

This  is  the  great  constitutional  defect  of  the  theology  we  are 
sitting  in  judgment  upon ;  a  defect  which  any  jury  of  plain 
Christian  men  can  understand;  and  it  is  easy  to  see,  to  what 
consequences,  in  the  end,  it  must  necessarily  lead.  Where  the 
Gospel  is  not  apprehended  as  the  historical,  enduring,  objective 
Manifestation  of  God  in  the  flesh,  there  can  be  no  steady  ap- 
prehension of  that  which  constitutes  the  proper  mystery  of  it  in 
this  view,  namely,  the  union  there  is  in  it  of  the  supernatu- 
ral with  the  natural  in  an  abiding,  historical  (not  magical) 
form.  This  precisely  is  the  true  object  of  all  evangelical  faith, 
in  the  New  Testament  sense ;  the  objective  power  of  salvation, 
through  the  apprehension  of  which  only,  faith  becomes  justify- 
ing and  saving  faith.  Instead  of  this,  we  shall  have  the  su- 
pernatural resolved  into  a  spiritualistic  presence,  seated  in  the 
Holy  Ghost,  and  made  to  reach  into  the  minds  of  men  directly 
from  heaven,  in  no  organic  conjunction  whatever  with  the  In- 
carnation; this  being  considered  as,  at  best,  the  outward  occa- 
sion only,  and  in  no  sense  the  inward  medium,  of  the  commu- 
nication. In  which  case  again,  what  is  called  justifying  faith 
is  no  longer  tied  to  the  objective  Gospel  (without  which,  how- 
ever, it  cannot  be  faith  at  all),  but  hugs  simply  the  Gospel  of 
this  subjective  assurance  a  man  may  have  of  God's  mercy  in 


OF   THE    NEW    LITURGY.  79 

his  own  mind,  becoming  thus,  in  fact,  justification  by  fancy  or 
feeling.  But  with  the  real  supernatural  of  the  Gospel  meta- 
morphosed in  this  way  into  the  general  notion  of  the  super- 
natural in  a  metaphysical  view,  the  whole  conception  of  Chris- 
tianity, in  fact,  sinks  into  the  order  of  nature.  The  sense  of 
what  it  is  as  a  continuous  constitution  of  grace,  the  historical 
presence  of  new  heavenly  powers,  through  the  Spirit  in  the 
world,  is  gone.  As  with  the  Gnostics  of  old,  the  spiritual  has 
lost  all  concrete,  objective  union  with  the  natural.  The  bond 
between  them  has  thinned  itself  into  airy  speculation.  The 
system  has  become,  in  one  word,  essentially  rationalistic.  The 
virus  of  unbelief  is  in  its  veins;  and  it  has  no  longer  power  to 
understand  or  appreciate  fully,  at  a  single  point,  the  Mystery 
of  Godliness,  as  it  was  seen  of  angels,  preached  to  the  nations, 
and  believed  on  in  the  world,  at  the  beginning. 

Hence,  the  trouble  this  unhistorical  Christianity  has  every- 
where, with  whatever  comes  before  it  as  an  assertion  of  ob- 
jective grace  in  the  institutions  of  the  Gospel.  What  is  ex- 
hibited as  thus  transcending  the  order  of  life  in  its  natural 
character,  is  set  down  at  once  for  superstition.  It  is,  of  course, 
then,  unchurchly.  A  Church  in  the  sense  of  the  Creed — the 
organ  through  which  Christ  works  in  the  world  (His  body), 
the  medium  of  His  presence  among  men,  the  home  of  His  Spirit, 
the  sphere  of  His  grace — is  for  it  no  object  of  faith  what- 
ever, but  an  object  rather  of  instinctive  abhorrence  and  scorn. 
The  office  of  the  ministry  flows  in  its  view,  not  really,  but  only 
metaphorically,  from  Christ's  Ascension  Gift  (Eph.  iv:  8-12). 
Ordination  is  no  investiture  with  a  supernatural  commission, 
proceeding  from  the  Holy  Ghost.  Apostolical  succession,  in 
the  case,  is  an  idle  dream.  Sacraments,  as  such,  are  held  to 
be  a  Romanizing  abomination.  For  the  spirit  in  question,  the 
sacramental  in  truth,  wherever  it  comes  in  its  way,  is  a  very 
Ithuriel's  spear,  the  bare  touch  of  which  is  enough  to  start  it 
into  its  real  shape,  and  make  it  appear  the  low  rationalistic 
spirit  which  it  is  in  fact.  Sacraments  are  for  it  signs  only  of 
grace  absent,  and  in  no  proper  sense  seals  of  grace  present. 

That  such  a  theology  as  this  should  have  no  sympathy  with 


80  THEOLOGICAL   VINDICATION 

the  true  idea  of  worship  in  its  liturgical  form,  results,  as  all  can 
see,  from  its  very  constitution ;  and  that  it  should  be  found  ar- 
rayed now  against  our  new  Liturgy,  is  nothing  more  than  what 
was  to  be  expected.  The  conflict  in  the  case,  as  already  said, 
is  a  conflict  of  theological  systems;  not  a  controversy  about  a 
few  responses,  and  a  few  outward  forms  (as  the  ridiculous  fuss 
made  in  certain  quarters  about  Ritualism  in  the  German  Re- 
formed Church  might  seem  to  imply),  but  a  controversy  about 
doctrines  and  articles  of  faith,  that  strikes  far  beyond  the  Ger- 
man Reformed  Church  into  the  life  of  the  entire  Evangelical 
Protestantism  of  this  land. 

So  much  for  the  subject  in  its  general  view.  The  two  oppos- 
ing schemes  of  divinity  are  before  us  in  a  contrasted  form, 
which  even  plain  people,  it  is  trusted,  may  be  able  to  under- 
stand ;  if  not  with  full  scientific  insight  always  at  every  point, 
yet  with  the  insight,  at  least,  of  sound  theological  feeling,  which 
is  something  far  better.  It  remains  now  to  notice  briefly  the 
theological  objections  made  to  the  Liturgy  at  certain  particular 
points.  They  will  be  found  to  resolve  themselves  at  once  into 
the  general  issue,  between  the  two  systems  which  have  been 
thus  far  compared ;  and  with  this  in  view,  it  will  be  very  easy 
to  see  to  what  they  amount. 

PARTICULAR     OBJECTIONS. 

I.  It  has  been  objected  at  times  to  the  Ordination  Service 
(though  we  heard  little  of  this  at  Dayton),  that  it  makes  too 
much  of  the  derivation  of  the  ofiice  of  the  Ministry,  by  histori- 
cal succession  from  Christ,  and  goes  too  far  especially  in  say- 
ing, as  it  does  p.  220,  that  the  gift  and  grace  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  are  to  be  looked  for  through  the  laying  on  of  hands,  for 
the  fulfilment  of  its  heavenly  commission. 

But  here  the  question  at  bottom  is  simply,  whether  the 
Church  is  to  be  regarded  at  all,  or  not,  as  an  objective,  histori- 
cal, more  than  merely  natural  constitution,  carrying  in  itself 
powers  and  functions  for  its  own  ends,  which  are  peculiar  to 
itself,  and  not  to  be  found  anywhere  else.     Is  it  after  all  only 


OF   THE   NEW    LITURGY.  81 

like  a  Temperance  Society  or  a  Political  Party  ?  What 
business  lias  it  then  among  the  faith  mysteries  of  the  Creed  ? 

In  the  view  of  the  Liturgy,  the  Church  is  an  organization,  as 
the  Creed  makes  it  to  be,  which  is  not  simply  human,  but  is,  at 
the  same  time,  also,  superhuman,  in  virtue  of  its  organic  out- 
flow from  the  fountain  head  of  all  grace  and  truth  in  the  world, 
the  union  of  the  divine  and  human  in  the  Person  of  our  Lord 
and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  through  the  mystery  of  the  Incar- 
nation. The  organization  being  such,  must  not  its  organs  and 
functions  be  of  a  corresponding  character?  Is  the  Liturgy 
wrong  in  declaring  the  office  of  the  ministry  to  be  "of  divine 
origin,  and  of  truly  supernatural  character  and  force,  flowing 
directly  from  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  Himself,  as  the  fruit  of 
His  resurrection  and  triumphant  ascension  into  heaven?"  Is 
not  this  precisely  what  St.  Paul  teaches  us,  in  the  notable 
fourth  chapter  of  his  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians?  May  the  office 
come  to  any  one,  then,  except  from  Christ,  and  through  the 
order  He  has  Himself  established  for  handing  it  down  in  the 
Church?  "The  solemnity  of  ordination,  then,  through  which 
this  transmission  flows, "  we  are  justified  surely  in  saying  wjith  the 
Liturgy,  "  is  not  merely  an  impressive  ceremony,  by  which  the 
right  of  such  as  are  called  of  God  to  the  ministry,  is  owned 
and  confessed  by  the  Church ;  but  it  is  to  be  considered  rather 
as  their  actual  investiture  with  the  very  power  of  the  office 
itself,  the  sacramental  seal  of  their  heavenly  commission,  and 
a  symbolical  assurance  from  on  high,  that  their  consecration  to 
the  service  of  Christ  is  accepted,  and  that  the  Holy  Ghost  will 
most  certainly  be  with  them  in  the  faithful  discharge  of  their 
official  duties." 

Do  we  doubt  this?  Does  it  come  as  a  strange,  mystical, 
dangerously  hierarchical  doctrine  to  our  ears  ?  Then  must  we 
question,  to  the  same  extent,  the  reality  of  any  such  order  of 
grace  in  the  world,  as  we  profess  to  believe  every  time  we  re- 
peat the  Creed.  Ordination  is  a  mere  sham,  indeed,  if  it  be 
not  the  conveyance  of  power  and  right  to  exercise  functions 
appertaining  to  the  realm  or  jurisdiction  in  which  it  has  place, 
as  really  as  the  commission  of  the  civil  magistrate  is  for  him 


82  THEOLOGICAL   VINDICATION 

an  investiture  witli  qualification  he  would  not  otherwise  possess, 
to  act  in  the  name  of  the  government  he  represents.  The  com- 
mission in  either  case  must  have  quality  and  force  answerable 
to  the  order  of  authority  it  proceeds  from;  and  this  being  more 
than  simply  human  and  terrestrial  in  the  case  of  the  Gospel,  it 
follows  that  the  commission  here  must  carry  with  it  correspond- 
ing celestial  character.  Such  being  the  case,  it  is  only  part  of 
the  faith  which  properly  belongs  to  the  transaction,  when 
ordination  is  held  to  be  the  channel  of  supernatural  official  en- 
dowment for  the  work  of  the  ministry ;  and  nothing  can  be 
more  proper  than  that  the  candidate,  having  made  good  con- 
fession of  his  general  faith  previously,  should  have  the  ques- 
tion put  to  him  finally:  "Are  you  truly  persuaded  in  your 
heart,  that  you  are  called  of  God  to  the  office  of  the  holy  minis- 
try, and  do  you  desire  and  expect  to  receive,  through  the  lay- 
ing on  of  our  hands,  the  gift  and  grace  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
which  shall  enable  you  to  fulfil  this  heavenly  commission  and 
trust?" 

It  goes  hard  with  the  spiritualistic  system,  we  know,  to 
admi^,  anything  that  looks  to  the  real  presence  of  the  supernatural 
in  this  matter  of  fact  way.  The  idea  of  grace  tied  to  any 
outward  occasion  as  such,  the  Holy  Ghost  bound  to  ordinances, 
is  for  it  something  heterogeneous  with  its  ordinary  conception  of 
religion  as  an  afi"air  of  purely  subjective  experience.  It  is  felt 
to  smack  of  mummery  and  superstition.  Here,  especially, 
corbes  in  the  bugbear  of  priestly  manipulation  and  tactual  suc- 
cession, so  easy  to  be  sneered  at  by  the  frivolous.  But  what 
mummery  must  it  not  be,  in  fact,  to  go  through  a  form  of  this 
sort,  without  any  belief  in  the  reality  of  what  it  pretends  to  be  ? 
To  insist,  that,  while  it  seems  to  mean  much,  it  means  in  truth 
in  itself  just  nothing,  and  is  only  the  sign  of  something  alto- 
gether out  of  and  beyond  itself?  If  ordination  be  more  than 
the  powwowing  of  Pagan  superstition,  it  must  involve  a  real 
clothing  with  office  in  Christ's  kingdom;  and  this  can  come 
only  from  Himself  through  the  Holy  Ghost.  Does  the  candi- 
date believe  that,  and  look  for  it,  in  the  transaction  ?  Do  those 
who  lay  hands  on   Him  expect  it,  and  mean  it  in  their  own 


OF   THE   NEW   LiTURGY.  83 

minds?  If  not,  what  business  have  they  to  be  mocking  high 
heaven  with  their  dumb  show  in  this  way  ? 

II.  Confession  and  Absolution.  Exception  is  taken  to  the 
form  in  the  Liturgy,  by  which  the  minister  is  directed,  after 
the  General  Confession,  to  assure  such  as  are  truly  penitent, 
that  their  sins  are  pardoned  for  Christ's  sake  (p.  10).  It 
breathes,  we  are  told,  an  odor  of  sacerdotalism;  and  serves  to 
break  the  direct,  immediate  relation  that  should  hold  in  the 
ease  between  the  believer  and  his  Lord. 

Now,  looking  at  the  form  itself,  its  terms  certainly  would 
seem  to  be  safe  enough  in  this  view  even  for  the  most  fastidi- 
ous Puritanic  judgment.  For  they  only  say,  in  fact,  what  any 
one  may  say,  and  what  all  are  bound  to  believe,  of  God's  grace 
toward  the  penitent  through  the  Gospel.  "Unto  as  many  of 
you,  beloved  brethren,"  the  form  runs,  "  as  truly  repent  of 
your  sins,  and  believe  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  with  full  pur- 
pose of  new  obedience," — to  such  and  no  others — "  I  announce 
and  declare,  by  the  authority  and  in  the  name  of  Christ" — not 
by  my  own  or  any  other  authority — "that  your  sins  are  for- 
given in  heaven,  according  to  His  Gospel,  through  the  perfect 
merit  of  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord."  Is  there  more  in  this  at  any 
time,  than  the  declaration  of  what  is  at  all  times  and  in  all 
places  true  ?  Does  it  imply  that  the  minister  himself  pretends 
to  forgive  sins?  Does  it  not,  in  the  strongest  manner,  say  just 
the  opposite?  What  better  is  it  then  than  spiritualistic  pru- 
dery of  the  most  captious  sort,  to  put  on  a  show  of  being 
scandalized  with  it  in  any  such  view? 

But  there  is  more  in  the  matter  than  this.  The  oifence 
taken  is,  after  all,  with  what  lies  deeper  than  the  form.  It  is 
the  instinctive  working  as  before  of  the  unchurchly  spirit, 
against  what  is  felt  to  come  in  its  way  here  as  the  mediation 
of  Divine  favor  through  the  Church.  God  only  can  forgive 
sins,  it  saj^s  with  the  Pharisees  of  old ;  from  Him  only,  there- 
fore, can  we  have  the  blessing  in  a  direct  spiritual  way — His 
spirit  touching  our  spirit,  without  any  intervening  medium;  to 
conceive  of  any  such  instrumentation  of  His  grace  on  the  earth, 
is  blasphemy  and  superstition.     In  other  words,  this  Gnostic, 


84  THELOGICAL  VINDICATION 

rationalistic  spirit  eschews  here,  as  at  all  other  points,  the  mys- 
tery of  an  organic,  objective,  historical  connection  between 
the  Cliurch  of  Christ  and  the  Holy  Ghost;  and  refuses  to  ac- 
knowledge the  Holy  Ghost,  the  Divine  in  Christianity,  unless 
in  the  form  only  of  an  intellectual  abstraction,  bound  to  the 
outward  organization  and  order  of  the  Church  in  no  way  what- 
ever. Of  the  "forgiveness  of  sins,"  in  the  sense  of  the  Creed, 
where  it  is  made  to  be  a  mystery  for  faith  holding  only  in  the 
bosom  of  the  Holy  Catholic  Church,  the  spirit  in  question 
knows  nothing.  How  should  it?  Have  we  not  seen  already 
that  it  is  at  war  with  the  whole  Creed? 

The  acts  of  the  Church,  we  have  good  reason  to  say,  in  the 
exercise  of  her  proper  functions,  and  through  her  proper  organs, 
are  never  just  the  same  thing  with  what  might  be  done  by  a  mere 
civil  corporation  presuming  to  act  in  the  same  way.  To  think  or 
say  so,  would,  indeed,  be  to  blaspheme  the  Gospel.  As  official 
acts,  they  have  in  their  own  sphere  a  real  force,  answering  to 
the  character  of  the  sphere,  and  being  in  fact  the  form  in  which 
its  powers  reach  forward  to  their  proposed  end.  Who  will 
deny  this?     No  one,  it  might  seem,  but  an  infidel. 

Shall  we  be  afraid  then  to  say,  that  the  official  act  of  the  min- 
ister, the  organ  of  the  Church,  in  blessing  the  people,  or  in 
pronouncing  to  the  penitent  the  pardon  of  their  sins,  means 
something  more  than  the  same  declarations  Avould  mean,  made 
by  some  one  else  in  an  unofficial  and  common  way?  The  minis- 
ter does  not  originate  the  pardon  he  pronounces ;  neither  does 
the  Church ;  but  the  voice  of  the  Church,  nevertheless,  uttered 
by  him  and  through  him,  there  where  he  stands  in  the  objective 
bosom  of  this  grace,  may  be  and  is  of  immense  account  for 
bearins:  the  sense  of  it  with  full  comfort  into  the  believer's  heart. 
If  there  are  any  who  cannot  see  this,  sustained  as  it  is  by  the 
known  relation  of  thought  and  word  universally,  and  by  analo- 
gies to  be  met  with  everywhere  in  common  life,  they  are  to  be 
pitied  for  the  narrowness  of  their  thinking,  rather  than 
argued  with  seriously  in  so  plain  a  case. 

III.  We  turn  our  attention  next  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Lit- 
urgy in  regard  to  Baptism.    Exception  is  taken  to  it,  as  teach- 


OF  THE   NEW   LITURGY.  85 

ing  baptismal  regeneration,  substituting  a  mechanical  ceremony 
for  the  righteousness  of  faith,  and  making  a  mere  outwar<l 
form  to  stand  for  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Let  us  see  how 
the  matter  really  stands. 

In  somewhat  bewildering  contrast  with  this,  the  same  service, 
which  is  thus  charged  with  making  too  little  of  the  sinner's 
justification,  has  been  reproached  for  making  a  great  deal  too 
much  of  his  original  guilt  and  condemnation.  Many  at  least,  at 
the  Synod  at  Dayton,  could  hardly  trust  their  ears,  when  they 
heard  a  Professor  of  Theology,  in  the  Reformed  Church,  say 
there,  openly,  that  he,  for  his  part,  could  not  go  with  the  Lit- 
urgy, where  it  speaks  of  deliverance  of  our  children  through 
baptism  "from  the  power  of  the  Devil;"  he  did  not  believe  it 
to  be  so  bad  with  the  children  of  Christians  naturally  as  that; 
it  was  enough  to  appeal  to  the  common  sensibilities  of  parents 
(mothers  in  particular),  to  prove  the  contrary!  This  sounds 
strange  certainly;  but  it  needs  only  a  little  reflection  to  per- 
ceive, that  it  is,  after  all,  only  the  Avorking  out  at  a  new  point 
of  the  same  false  spiritualism,  which  finds  it  so  hard  to  under- 
stand or  acknowledge,  on  the  other  side,  the  presence  of  any 
real  objective  grace  in  baptism. 

The  Professor  of  Theology  referred  to  taught  in  this  case, 
of  course,  blank  Pelagiansism.  Here  precisely  lay  the  old 
theological  quarrel  between  Pelagius  and  St.  Augustine.  Pela- 
gius,  appealing  to  the  common  sensibilities  of  human  nature, 
would  not  allow  that  children  are  born  into  the  world  under  the 
curse  of  original  sin,  which  is  the  power  of  the  Devil.  St.  Au- 
gustine maintained  the  contrary,  and  what  is  especially  notice- 
able, confounded  Pelagius  most  of  all,  by  appealing  to  infant 
baptism,  which  could  have  no  meaning,  he  said,  except  in  the 
Ijo-ht  of  a  deliverance  from  the  curse  of  sin  conceived  of  in  this 
real  way.  So,  we  know,  the  Church,  also,  decided  against  the 
heresiarch  and  his  followers;  and  the  decision  has  been  echoed 
by  the  orthodoxy  of  the  Christian  world,  from  that  day  down 
to  the  present.  We  content  ourselves  with  quoting  now  simply 
the  plain  words  of  the  Heidelberg  Catechism,  the  symbol  this 
Professor  of  Theology  has  bound  himself  as  with  the  solemnity 


86  THEOLOGICAL   VINDICATION 

of  an  oath  to  teach.  "  By  the  fall  and  disobedience  of  our 
first  parents,  Adam  and  Eve,  in  Paradise,"  the  Catechism  tells 
us,  Question  7,  "our  nature  became  so  corrupt,  that  we  are 
all  conceived  and  born  in  sin."  On  this  then  follows  the  ques- 
tion: "But  are  we  so  far  depraved,  that  we  are  wholly  unapt 
to  any  good  [gam  und  gar  untiiclitig  zu  einigem  Guteji),  and 
prone  to  all  evil?"  to  which  is  thundered  forth,  as  from  Mount 
Sinai,  the  soul-shaking  answer:  "Yes;  unless  we  are  born 
again  by  the  Spirit  of  God."  JIozv  this  new  birth  by  the 
Spirit  is  brought  to  pass,  is  not  here  of  any  account ;  what  we 
have  to  do  with  now  is  simply  the  witness  of  the  Catechism  to 
the  total  depravity  of  infants.  It  is  plain,  direct,  overwhelm- 
ing. 

And  is  not  this  what  we  are  taught  no  less  plainly  in  the 
New  Testament?  "That  which  is  born  of  the  flesh,"  our 
Saviour  says  to  Nicodemus  (John  iii.  6.)  "is  flesh" — that  is, 
mere  human  nature  in  its  fallen  character,  which  as  such  can- 
not enter  the  kingdom  of  God,  but  is  hopelessly  on  the  out- 
side of  that  kingdom,  and  so  under  the  power  of  the  Devil ; 
only  "that  which  is  born  of  the  Spirit,  is  spirit;"  and  for  this 
reason  it  is,  that  a  man  must  be  born  again,  "born  of  water 
and  the  Spirit,"  in  order  that  he  may  have  part  in  this  salvation. 
But  why  pursue  the  argument  in  this  way?  Must  we  go  about 
proving  at  length  for  elders  and  deacons,  or  for  the  people  at 
large,  in  the  German  Reformed  Church,  that  the  Scriptures 
teach  the  doctrine  of  Original  Sin?  The  very  children  in  our 
Sunday-schools  have  a  sounder  theology  on  this  subject,  than 
the  Divinity  Professor,  who  so  exposed  himself  in  regard  to  it 
at  the  Synod  in  Dayton. 

A  Pelagian  anthropology  leads  over  naturally  to  a  spiritual- 
istic construction  of  the  whole  Christian  salvation;  in  which, 
as  there  is  no  organic  power  of  the  Devil  or  kingdom  of  dark- 
ness, for  men  to  be  delivered  from,  so  there  will  be  no  organic 
redemption  either,  no  objective,  historical  order  of  grace,  in 
the  bosom  and  through  the  power  of  which,  this  salvation  is 
to  go  forward ;  but  all  will  be  made  to  resolve  itself  into  work- 
ings of  God's   Spirit  that  are  of  a  general  character,  and  into 


OF   THE   NEW   LITURGY.  87 

processes  of  thought  and  feeling,  on  the  part  of  men,  -with 
no  other  basis  than  the  relations  of  God  to  man  in  the  most  com- 
mon, simply  humanitarian  view.  Is  there  then  no  organic  re- 
demption needed  for  men,  into  the  sphere  of  which  they  must 
come  first  of  all,  in  order  that  they  may  have  power  to  become 
personally  righteous,  and  so  be  able  to  work  out  their  salva- 
tion with  fear  and  trembling,  as  knowing  it  to  be  God  that 
worketh  in  them  both  to  will  and  to  do  of  His  own  good  pleas- 
sure?  Has  the  Church  been  wrono-  in  believino;  throufrh  all 
ages,  that  "we  must  be  delivered  from  the  power  of  darkness, 
and  translated  into  the  kingdom  of  God's  dear  Son"  (Col.  i. 
13),  not  as  the  end  of  our  personal  goodness  and  piety,  but  the 
beginning  of  it,  and  the  one  necessary  condition  first  of  all, 
without  which  we  can  make  no  progress  in  goodness  or  piety 
whatever?  Has  the  Church  been  wrong  in  believing,  that  such 
change  of  state,  such  transplantation  from  the  kingdom  of  the 
Devil  over  into  the  kingdom  of  Christ,  must  in  the  nature  of 
the  case  be  a  Divine  act ;  and  that  as  such  a  Divine  act,  it  must 
be  something  more  than  any  human  thought  or  volition  sim- 
ply, stimulated  into  action  by  God's  Spirit?  Has  the  Church 
been  wrong  in  believing,  finally,  that  the  Sacrament  of  Holy  Bap- 
tism, the  sacrament  of  initiation  into  the  Church,  was  insti- 
tuted, not  only  to  signify  this  truth  in  a  general  way,  but  to 
seal  it  as  a  present  actuality  for  all  who  are  willing  to  accept 
the  boon  thus  offered  to  them  in  the  transaction  ? 

Baptismal  regeneration  !  our  evangelical  spiritualists  are  at 
once  ready  to  exclaim.  Bufwe  will  not  allow  ourselves  to  be  put 
out  of  course  in  so  solemn  an  argument,  by  any  catchword  of 
this  sort  addressed  to  popular  prejudice.  The  Liturgy  avoids 
the  ambiguous  phrase;  and  we  will  do  so  too;  for  the  word  re- 
generation is  made  to  mean,  sometimes  one  thing,  and  some- 
times another,  and  it  does  not  come  in  our  way  at  all  at  pre- 
sent to  discus^  these  meanings.  We  are  only  concerned,  that 
no  miserable  logomachy  of  this  sort  shall  be  allowed  to  cheat 
us  out  of  what  the  sacrament  has  been  held  to  be  in  past  ages; 
God's  act,  setting  apart  those  who  are  the  subjects  of  it  to  His 
service,  and  bringing  them  within  the  sphere  of  His  grace  in 


«»  THEOLOGICAL   VINDICATION 

order  that  they  may  be  saved.  We  do  not  ask  any  one  to  call 
this  regeneration ;  it  may  not  suit  at  all  his  sense  of  the  term ; 
but  we  do  most  earnestly  conjure  all  to  hold  fast  to  the  thing, 
call  it  by  what  term  they  may.  The  question  is  simply, 
Doth  baptism  in  any  sense  save  us  ?  That  is,  does  it  put  us 
in  the  way  of  salvation?  Has  it  anything  to  do  at  all  with 
our  deliverance  from  original  sin,  and  our  being  set  down  in 
the  new  world  of  righteousness  and  grace,  which  has  been 
brought  to  pass,  in  the  midst  of  Satan's  kingdom  all  around 
it,  by  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ? 

For  the  defence  of  the  Liturgy  it  will  be  enough  to  place 
the  matter  now  on  the  lowest  ground.  Our  spiritualists  ad- 
mit that  God  may  make  baptism  the  channel  of  His  grace — 
may  cause  the  thing  signified  to  go  along  with  the  outward 
sign,  when  He  is  pleased  to  do  so ;  only  they  will  not  have  it 
that  His  grace  is  in  any  way  bound  to  the  ordinance.  Will 
they  not  admit  then  also,  that  the  sacrament  ought  to  be  so  used 
as  to  carry  with  it  the  benefit  it  represents ;  that  God  designed 
it  to  be  in  this  way  more  than  an  empty  form ;  and  that  it  is 
the  duty  of  all,  therefore,  to  desire  and  expect  through  it  what 
it  thus,  by  Divine  appointment,  holds  out  to  expectation?  Who 
will  be  so  bold  as  to  say,  in  so  many  words,  that  baptism  means 
no  deliverance  whatever  from  the  power  of  sin,  and  that  it  is 
superstition  to  come  looking  for  anything  of  this  sort  from  it? 
Why  then  quarrel  with  the  Liturgy  for  making  earnest  with 
the  objective  force  of  the  sacrament  in  this  view? 

"You  present  this  child  here,"  it  is  said,  "and  do  seek  for 
him  deliverance  from  the  power  of  the  Devil,  the  remission  of 
sin,  and  the  gift  of  a  new  and  spiritual  life  by  the  Holy  Ghost, 
through  the  Sacrament  of  Baptism,  which  Christ  hath  ordained 
for  the  communication  of  such  great  grace."  Is  it  not  true, 
that  the  sacrament  has  been  ordained  for  that  purpose,  even  if 
this  be  not  exclusively  or  necessarily  bound  to  its  administra- 
tion? If  not,  for  what  other  purpose  under  heaven  was  it 
ordained?  And  if  for  this  purpose,  why  should  those  who 
come  to  the  ordinance,  not  come  seeking  what  it  holds  out  in 
this  way  to  the  view  of  faith?     Are   they  to   come  seeking 


OF   THE   NEW    LITURGY.  89 

nothing,  expecting  nothing,  believing  nothing?  Or  if  other- 
wise, in  the  name  of  all  common  sense,  tell  us,  0  ye  Gnostic 
dreamers,  ye  zealous  contenders  against  formalities  and  forms, 
what  then  a)'e  they  to  seek  ? 

The  Liturgy,  we  allow,  however,  goes  beyond  this  low  view 
of  the  mere  possibility  of  grace  through  the  sacrament;  it 
affirms  that  God,  on  His  part,  makes  it  to  be  always  objectively 
just  what  it  means.  In  other  works,  it  teaches  the  reality  of 
sacramental  grace;  and  sees  in  it  a  birth-right  title  to  all  the 
blessings  of  the  new  covenant.  This  does  not  mean,  that  it 
regenerates  or  converts  any  one  in  the  modern  Methodistic 
sense  of  these  terms;  that  it  saves  people  by  magic;  or  that  it 
makes  their  final  salvation  sure  in  any  way.  Like  Esau's 
birthright,  it  may  be  neglected,  despised,  parted  with  for  a 
mess  of  pottage.  But  all  this  does  not  touch  the  question  of 
its  intrinsic  value,  in  its  own  order ;  as  being  a  real  Divine  gift 
and  power  of  Sonship,  nevertheless,  in  the  family  of  God,  for 
which  all  the  treasures  of  the  earth  should  be  counted  a  poor 
and  mean  exchange. 

On  this  subject  of  baptismal  grace,  then,  we  will  enter  into 
no  compromise  with  the  anti-liturgical  theology  we  have  now 
in  hand.  In  seeking  to  make  the  Liturgy  wrong,  it  has  only 
shown  itself  wrong;  and  the  more  its  errors  are  probed,  the 
more  are  they  found  to  be  indeed,  "wounds,  and  bruises,  and 
putrefying  sores."  Starting  with  Pelagianism  on  one  side,  it 
lands  us  swiftly'in  dovrnright  Rationalism  on  the  other.  "It 
is  impossible,"  says  the  distinguished  French  Reformed  divine, 
Pressens6,  in  a  late  article,  "to  establish  the  necessity  of  in- 
fant baptism,  except  upon  the  ground  that  baptism  imparts  a 
special  grace."  We  are  most  decidedly  of  the  same  opinion; 
and  for  this  reason  we  denounce  this  theology  as  in  reality, 
whatever  it  may  be  in  profession,  hostile  to  infant  baptism,  and 
unfriendly,  therefore,  to  the  whole  idea  of  educational  religion 
as  this  has  been  based  upon  it  in  the  Reformed  Church  from 
the  beginning.  Without  the  conception  of  baptismal  grace 
going  along  with  the  baptism  of  infants,  there  can  be  no  room 
properly  for  confirmation ;  and  the  catechetical  training  which 


90  HISTORICAL   VINDICATION 

is  employed  to  prepare  the  way  for  this,  raay  easily  come  then 
to  seem  a  hinderance  rather  than  a  help,  to  the  true  conversion 
of  the  young  to  God.  Then  it  will  be  well,  if  baptism  fall  not 
into  general  contempt,  and  so  be  brought  to  sink  finally  more 
and  more  into  neglect  altogether.  To  what  a  pass  things  have 
already  come  in  this  respect  throughout  our  country,  by  rea- 
son of  the  baptistic  spirit  which  is  among  us,  and  the  general 
theological  tendency  we  are  now  considering,  we  will  not  now 
take  time  to  decide.  Those  who  have  eyes  to  see,  can  see  for 
themselves. 

IV.  Office  for  the  Holy  Communion.  The  central  char- 
acter of  this  service,  ruling  as  it  ought  to  do  the  whole 
Order  of  worship  to  which  it  belongs,  must  make  it  of  course 
specially  objectionable  to  the  anti-liturgical  spirit  with  which 
we  are  now  dealing. 

Particular  fault  has  sometimes  been  found  with  the  con- 
secratory  prayer  in  the  service,  as  teaching  a  real  union  be- 
tween Christ  and  the  elements  representing  His  body  and 
blood,  differing  altogether  from  the  proper  Reformed  doctrine 
on  this  mysterious  subject.  A  certain  Doctor  of  Divmity  went 
so  far  at  Dayton  as  to  say,  that  it  amounted  in  full  to  the  Ro- 
man Catholic  dogma  of  transubstantiation.  But  in  this  the 
Doctor  of  Divinity  was  egregiously  mistaken,  as  in  many 
things  besides.  The  doctrine  of  the  Liturgy  in  that  prayer 
is  not  Popish,  and  not  Lutheran,  but  strictly  Reformed.  Not 
to  be  sure  Reformed  in  the  modern  Puritan  sense,  in  which  too 
plainly  this  unliturgical  spirit  finds  its  familiar  home ;  but  Re- 
formed in  the  old  Cfi.lvinistic  sense,  as  this  entered  into  the  sym- 
bols of  the  Reformed  Church  generally  in  the  sixteenth  century. 

It  is  not  true  that  this  proper  Reformed  doctrine  made  the 
Lord's  Supper  to  be  only  a  commemorative  ordinance,  call- 
ing to  mind  the  fact  of  His  death.  It  made  it  to  be  this ;  but 
it  made  it  to  be  also  the  medium  of  a  realmystical  communion 
with  this  glorified  life.  It  saw  in  it,  not  a  sign  only,  but  a  sac- 
rament; the  conjunction  of  visible  elements  with  the  invisible 
represented  by  them,  in  such  sort  that  the  presence  of  the  one 
could  be  said  to  involve  the  presence  also  of  the  other — not 


OF   THE    NEW   LITURGY.  01 

locally  of  course,  but  dynamically  and  with  full  virtue  and  effect 
— through  the  wonder-working  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  This 
we  have  abundantly  shown  years  ago  in  our  tract  against  Dr. 
Ilodge,  entitled,  ''The  Doctrine  of  the  Reformed  Church  on 
the  Presence  of  Christ  in  the  Lord's  Supper;"  an  argument, 
which  no  one  has  ever  yet  pretended  to  meet,  and  whose  historical 
force  at  least  never  can  be  overthrown;  however  convenient  it 
may  be  for  Puritanic  divinity  to  go  on  repeating  its  tradition- 
ary song  on  this  subject,  as  though  history  had  nothing  do  with 
the  matter  whatever. 

Now  it  is  this  old  Reformed  doctrine,  we  affirm,  and  no  • 
other,  which  is  involved  in  the  consecratory  prayer  of  the  Lit- 
urgy. Any  one  at  all  familiar  with  the  Calvinistic  terminol- 
ogy in  regard  to  it,  can  see  that  it  is  faithfully  followed  at  every 
point.  It  would  be  hard,  indeed,  to  give  the  doctrine  more 
succinctly  or  exactly  in  the  same  compass.  God  is  called  upon 
to  "send  down  the  powerful  benediction  of  His  Holy  Spirit" 
upon  the  elements,  ''  that  being  set  apart  now  from  a  common 
to  a  sacred  and  mystical  use,  they  may  exhibit  and  represent" 
— these  being  the  very  terms  made  use  of  by  Calvin  to  distin- 
guish the  Reformed  doctrine  from  the  Lutheran ;  may  exhibit 
and  represent  ''to  us  with  true  eff'ect" — that  is,  not  corporeally, 
and  yet  not  simply  in  sign  or  shadow  either,  but  witli  the 
energy  of  actual  presence — "  the  Body  and  Blood  of  His  Son, 
Jesus  Christ;  so  that  in  the  use  of  them" — mark  again  the 
distinction ;  not  in  the  elements  themselves  outwardly  con- 
sidered, but  in  the  use  of  them,  that  is,  in  the  sacramental 
transaction,  "we  may  be  made,  through  the  power  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  " — again  the  Calvinistic  or  Reformed  qualification — 
"  to  partake  really  and  truly  of  His  blessed  life,  whereby  only 
we  can  be  saved  from  death,  and  raised  to  immortality  at  the 
last  day." 

In  the  face  of  all  this,  what  are  we  to  think  of  a  Doctor  of 
Divinity,  who  could  stand  up  and  say,  that  the  Liturgy  in  this 
prayer  teaches  the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation  ?  "' 

What  are  we  to  think  of  the  same  Doctor  of  Divinity,  when 
wc  find  him  thrumming  on  the  expression,  "  this  memorial  of 


92  THEOLOGICAL   VINDICATION 

the  blessed  sacrifice  of  Thy  Son,"  in  the  next  following  prayer; 
as  though  it  said  memorial  sacrifice,  and  meant  all  that  is  held 
offensive  in  the  Roman  Catholic  so  called  sacrifice  of  the  mass ! 
Alas,  alas,  for  the  Liturgy,  in  the  hands  of  theological  criticism 
so  utterly  untheological  as  this  ! 

A  truce,  however,  to  these  quibbles  about  particular  terms. 
The  real  controversy  here  is  with  the  Communion  service  as  a 
whole ;  and  it  turns  upon  the  sacramental  doctrine  which  un- 
derlies it  throughout,  and  which  in  this  way  conditions  the 
universal  sense  of  the  Liturgy.  This  anti-liturgical  theology, 
not  centering  in  the  Incarnation,  not  dAvelling  in  the  bosom  of 
the  Creed,  having  no  sense  for  objective  historical  Christianity, 
and  no  sense  for  the  Church,  can  have  at  the  same  time  of 
course  no  sense  for  the  sacramental  in  its  true  form.  For  what 
is  a  sacrament  ?  The  visible  exhibition  of  an  invisible  grace — 
a  mystery  in  this  view,  where  the  visible  and  invisible  are 
brought  together,  and  held  together,  not  simply  in  man's 
thought,  but  in  God's  power,  by  a  bond  holding  beyond  nature 
altogether  in  the  supernatural  order  of  grace.  Does  Puritan- 
ism believe  this?  Not  at  all.  It  will  know  no  sacrament,  save 
in  the  intelligible  form  of  a  sign,  which  simply  represents  and 
calls  to  mind  what  God  does  for  men  spiritually,  and  on  the 
outside  of  the  sacrament  altogether.  We  have  just  seen  what 
becomes  of  the  Sacrament  of  Baptism  in  the  hands  of  this 
spiritualistic  scheme.  And  noAv  it  is  only  what  might  be  ex- 
pected, to  find  it  bent  on  taking  away  our  Lord  from  us  after 
the  same  fashion,  in  the  Holy  Eucharist. 

The  Liturgy  stands  as  a  protest  and  defence  against  this 
j  sacrilege.  It  gives  us  the  true  Reformed  view  of  Christ's  pres- 
ence in  the  Lord's  Supper,  in  a  form  answering  at  the  same 
time  to  the  faith  and  worship  of  the  Primitive  Church.  It 
teaches,  that  the  Lord's  Supper  is  more  than  an  outward  sign, 
and  more  than  a  mere  calling  to  mind  of  our  Saviour's  death 
as  something  past  and  gone.  It  teaches,  that  the  value  of 
Christ's  sacrifice  never  dies,  but  is  perennially  continued  in  the 
power  of  His  life.  It  teaches,  that  the  outward  side  of  the 
sacrament  is  mystically  bound  by  the  Holy  Ghost  to  its  inward 


OF   THE   NEW   LITURGY.  93 

invisible  side ;  not  fancifully,  but  really  and  truly ;  so  that  the 
undying  power  of  Christ's  life  and  sacrifice  are  there,  in  the 
transaction,  for  all  who  take  part  in  it  with  faith.  It  teaches, 
that  it  is  our  duty  to  appropriate  this  grace,  and  to  bring  it  be- 
fore God  (the  "memorial  of  the  blessed  sacrifice  of  His  Son"), 
as  the  only  ground  of  our  trust  and  confidence  in  His  presence. 
All  this  the  Liturgy  teaches.  Who  will  say  that  it  wrongs,  in 
doing  so,  the  sacramental  doctrine  of  the  Reformed  Church? 
x\.re  we  then  to  have  no  sacraments  ?  Must  we  plunge  into  / 
the  full  abyss  of  Rationalism? 

We  now  stop.  Our  general  task  is  done.  Enough  has  been 
said,  to  show  how  things  stand  between  the  New  Liturgy  and 
its  theological  opposers.  We  are  willing  to  submit  the  case  to 
the  common  intelligence  of  our  churches.  Even  the  West  must 
yet  come,  we  think,  to  see  eye  to  eye  here  with  the  East. 
To  the  people  at  large  we  say:  Look  now  on  this  picture,  and 
now  on  that;  and  judge  ye  for  your  own  selves,  which  of  these 
theological  schemes  may  be  safest  and  best  for  the  German  Re- 
formed Church  to  take  to  her  bosom  at  the  present  time. 


Pnnceton  Theological  Semiciary-Spei 


1012  01022  2711 


